Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bill Petitions,

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:

Birmingham Corporation.
Bournemouth Gas and Water.
Christchurch Corporation.
Cornwall Electric Power.
Ely Cathedral Canonries.
Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas.
Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal.
Taunton Corporation.
Torquay Cemetery.
Wessex Electricity.
Wey Valley Water.

Private Bills [Lords],

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely:

Brighton Marine Palace and Pier.
Commercial Gas.
Coventry Corporation.
Farnham Gas and Electricity.
Gosport Water.
King Edward the Seventh Welsh National Memorial Association.
London County Council (General Powers).
Northallerton Urban District Council.
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

South-Eastern Gas Corporation Limited (Associated Companies). South Suburban Gas.
Private Bills [Lords] (Substituted Bills) (Standing Orders complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in respect of the following Bill, intended to be introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, and which the Chairman of Ways and Means had reported as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:—

Lipton Trust (Substituted Bill).

Private Bills Petitions [Lords]. (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the Freemasons' Lodges Bill, originating in the Lords, no Standing Orders are applicable previous to the introduction of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

SERVING MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary of State for War the names and rank of Members of Parliament now serving in the Army with the British Expeditionary Force in France and those serving with the Army at home respectively?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Oliver Stanley): A list is in preparation and I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT at an early date. In the case of any inaccuracies or omissions in the list which I circulated on 17th January last, I should be grateful if the hon. Members concerned, who have not already done so, would let me know at once.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the usual allowances are paid by the War Office to wives and children of men serving from whose pay deductions are made and forwarded


to the dependants on account of court separation orders?

Mr. Stanley: Where the amount stopped from a soldier's pay in respect of a court Order for the maintenance of his wife or children falls short of the amount prescribed in the Order, no allowance from Army funds is paid; but, if the stoppage is appreciably less than the amount which the man was in fact contributing towards the support of the parties concerned before being called up, it may be supplemented by the grant of a special allowance from the Ministry of Pensions if this course is recommended by the War Service Grants Advisory Committee.

Mr. Morgan: Does not the Minister admit that these women are still the wives of the serving men? Therefore, why are they discriminated against, seeing that other wives are given a supplementary allowance?

Mr. Stanley: This is a very difficult subject and a deputation is coming to see me on the subject at an early date, of which deputation I know the hon. Gentleman will be one.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the difficulty and hardship caused to dependants of the armed Forces of the Crown by the increase in the cost of living, he will consider the possibility of granting an additional allowance on a sliding scale, based on the increase in the cost of living since the date the present rates of allowances came into operation?

Mr. Stanley: No provision is made in Army dependants' allowance regulations for a review of the scale of payments on the ground of a change in the cost of living, and such a review could only be undertaken as part of a general reconsideration of similar fixed payments.

Captain Sir William Brass: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that under A.F.0700–1 paragraph c, a widow is unable to get dependants' allowance on account of her son if he has been unemployed for six months prior to enlistment, as the unemployment payment being low, the mother is presumed not to be dependent upon the son; and whether, in view of the hardship caused by this rule he will consider its amendment?

Mr. Stanley: The dependants' allowance scheme referred to is designed to provide for cases in which men who have been called to the colours are unable to continue to contribute towards the support of dependants at the same rate as they were doing before being called up. Where, for whatever reason, this situation does not obtain, awards cannot be made under the scheme; but, in such circumstances as are referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, it is possible for the Ministry of Pensions to grant a special allowance if this course is recommended by the War Service Grants Advisory Committee after investigation of the circumstances.

Sir W. Brass: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this rule causes great hardship to the poorer families in the areas where unemployment is rife. Will he consider that?

Mr. Stanley: I do not know whether, in the cases which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, application has in fact been made to the War Service Grants Advisory Committee set up to deal with these cases.

Mr. T. Williams: Where application has been made for special grants in view of very special circumstances, would any grant date back to the time of enlistment?

Mr. Stanley: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of that Question.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Glenvil Hall:

40. To ask the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the resolution passed by the Saddleworth Urban District Council, West Riding, and sent to him urging the Government to expedite the payment of allowances to the dependants of men serving in His Majesty's Forces and deprecating the unnecessary suffering caused by present delays; and what answer he proposes to make thereto?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The Resolution referred to in this Question was sent to the Prime Minister and I accordingly put the Question down to him. He was good enough to do me the courtesy to tell me that he had transferred it to the Secretary of State for War. With all respect to the Secretary of State for War, this Council would


like to have a reply from the head of the Government, and may I ask you, Sir, what remedy an ordinary member has in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: The same ruling which I always give that the Minister responsible is the proper Minister to answer a Question.

Mr. Hall: With all respect, this Question was addressed to the Prime Minister and not to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker: As the Prime Minister is not primarily responsible he transferred the Question to the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. Stanley: I have received the resolution. Every effort is being made to expedite the investigation and payment of dependants' allowances, and men can now prepare a claim when they report for medical examination. This should enable payment of the allowance, if admissible, to begin as soon as the man has joined for duty.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that in fact there are still a very large number of delays, and most of us are still getting a very large post-bag almost daily making complaints of this kind, and will he look into the matter again?

Mr. Stanley: We discussed this matter in the House last week, although I do not think the hon. Member was present, and I explained then that everything was being done to expedite it, and also that in a number of cases the delay was not due to the fault of the War Office but in part to the soldier or the dependant in not sending in the form.

Mr. Thorne: Will not the reply of the right hon. Gentleman have the same weight as if it were from the Prime Minister?

Mr. Stanley: I hope so.

SCOTTISH REGIMENTS (KILTS).

Lieut. - Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War the present position of the controversy over the withdrawal of the kilt from its use by Scottish regiments?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for War

(1) upon what information he has decided that it is impossible to maintain a supply of kilts sufficient to meet the requirements of the number of Highland units which now exist;
(2) the present available stock of kilts not already issued to soldiers?

Mr. Stanley: The present position is that, for technical reasons largely connected with the possible use of gas by the enemy, kilts will not be worn in a theatre of war or for training, but will be replaced by battle dress. For walking out, however, all ranks in possession of kilts may wear them until worn out, but no further issues will be made during the war except to pipers and drummers. It has been decided not to maintain a supply of kilts because the raw materials and necessary manufacturing capacity must be devoted to the supply of dress actually to be used in war in present conditions. The stock of kilts in hand is 12,229, and 12,684 remain to be delivered by manufacturers under existing contracts. This stock would be quite inadequate to meet further issues for walking-out purposes on the scale anticipated. Moreover, the dissipation of this stock during war-time would make it impossible to fulfil the pledge that has been given that kilts will be available for ceremonial and walking out purposes after the war. Should the supply position alter at any time in the future, I should be prepared to look into the matter again.

Sir T. Moore: Can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the kilt will be reintroduced as an article of dress after the war?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, an assurance has already been given and it is in order that that assurance can be implemented that this stock is being retained.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I hold in my hand written statements from nearly all the kilt makers in Scotland and from many of the leading manufacturers of the raw material—tartan—and that those statements indicate that there is no shortage either of the raw material or of manufacturing facilities? In view of those statements will my right hon. Friend be so good as to reconsider this matter?

Mr. Stanley: If there is any alteration in the supply position I will look into it,


but that is not my information. The raw material used and the manufacturing capacity for making up these kilts can be used for making the battle dress required in warfare.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statements to which I refer are made by firms who are not now making any other kind of garment, and therefore they are quite free as regards material and manufacturing facilities to make kilts?

Mr. Stanley: I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will send me any information which he has but I must make it quite clear I am not prepared to subordinate the demands for actual fighting dress to the making of kilts.

SEARCHLIGHT UNITS.

Viscountess Astor: asked the Secretary of State for War how many searchlight units are still living under canvas?

Mr. Stanley: According to the latest information I have, the answer is none.

COMPLAINTS (PROCEDURE).

Mr. Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for War the proper channels through which complaints or representations intended for the attention of His Majesty's Government should be transmitted by officers of the Army Council or General Staff?

Mr. Stanley: Complaints or representations of the kind indicated in the Question should be laid before the Army Council, of which the Secretary of State for War is the President. It would be for him to decide whether the matter should be brought to the notice of the Cabinet or, in time of war, the War Cabinet.

Mr. Lyons: Would it be in the discretion of the Secretary of State for the time being not to have the matter brought forward?

Mr. Stanley: It would be in his discretion, but I cannot believe that any responsible Secretary of State for War, knowing that members of the Army Council desire matters to be brought to the notice of the Cabinet, would not grant facilities for doing so.

BILLETED SOLDIERS (OMNIBUS FARES).

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that billeted members of His Majesty's Forces have in many cases to pay exorbitant fares, involving grave hardship; and whether he will take steps to enable soldiers in uniform not to pay omnibus fares as in the last war?

Mr. Stanley: Soldiers billeted over two miles from their place of duty are allowed a refund of their travelling expenses by the cheapest means for one return journey a day. I cannot find that the practice in the last war went beyond this.

SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (RATIONS).

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will issue instructions to the responsible authorities that in future every member of the armed Forces should be provided with his ration allowance at the time he goes on leave, as in many homes hardship is experienced where the soldier arrives home on leave and has not been paid the ration allowance?

Mr. Stanley: The issue of advances for periods of leave less than 72 hours raises practical difficulties. The matter needs further investigation, and I will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

OFFICERS (REVERSION IN RANK).

Major Cazalet: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of officers serving in antiaircraft units, who had been promoted and gazetted with acting rank of captains, and who had served for more than two months on war sites, have, without any notice or reason being given, been demoted to second lieutenants; and whether any regulation has been passed which authorises the demoting of an officer while he continues to serve in the same unit other than the sentence of court martial?

Mr. Stanley: The establishments of the units concerned were reduced by one captain on 31st December last, and acting captains had, therefore, to revert to their substantive rank. The regulations governing the promotion of officers in war provide that higher acting rank may be given within units to fill vacancies in approved establishments; but that such acting ranks shall only be tenable whilst the holders are actually performing the


duties of the higher ranks. Officers holding acting ranks are, therefore, always liable to revert to their substantive ranks if there is a change in the circumstances which led to the grant of their acting ranks. The matter is, however, being further investigated, and I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know the result in due course.

Major Cazalet: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is derogatory that either officers or N.C.O.'s should be reduced in rank while still serving in the same unit in which they have been promoted?

Mr. Stanley: As I said, I am looking into this matter, but as the same sort of thing happended to me in the last war, although not in the same unit, I cannot agree that it is derogatory.

ALIENS (ENLISTMENT).

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now prepared to grant freedom of enlistment into the British Army to friendly Czech citizens as well as to Germans and Austrians now in this country?

Mr. Stanley: Under the Order-in-Council issued on 28th September last, any alien may hold a commission or may be entered or enlisted in any of His Majesty's Forces as if he were a British subject. Czecho-Slovakian nationals applying for enlistment are, however, being encouraged to enlist for service in the Czecho-Slovak Legion in France.

Mr. Leach: I understand there is no order to that effect and it is entirely voluntary. Is that right?

Mr. Stanley: That is right.

Viscountess Astor: If one of these Czechs were known to be a Cornmunist—

Mr. Boothby: Or a Fascist.

Viscountess Astor: Or a Fascist, would he be allowed to enlist?

Mr. T. Williams: Does the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave also refer to Poles who happen to be in this country and who are willing to fight against Germany?

Mr. Stanley: The Question was specifically asked about Czechs.

Mr. Denville: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to form a foreign legion in this country?

COMMAND PAY OFFICES (STAFFING).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Government is considering utilising the services of the existing qualified staffs to be found in the Territorial Army and Air Force Associations of the different counties with a view to relieving the congestion in the central command pay offices?

Mr. Stanley: Territorial Associations have been asked to give Commands particulars of any of their staffs who were surplus to requirements with a view to their employment in military offices. The number available from this source would, however, be comparatively small.

FATAL ACCIDENTS IN CAMPS.

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the increasing number of fatal accidents in camps due to the thoughtless handling of weapons; and whether he proposes to issue any general instructions on the subject?

Mr. Stanley: Instructions regarding the custody of ammunition are contained in The King's Regulations. All fatal accidents are investigated by a Court of Inquiry, and such action is taken as the investigation shows to be necessary. It is not considered at this stage that the issue of further general instructions is required.

COMMISSIONS.

Mr. Ede: asked the Secretary of State for War how many soldiers serving in the ranks have received commissions since 3rd September, 1939; and how many commissions have been granted to other persons?

Mr. Stanley: The number of commissions other than as quartermasters granted to men after enlistment in the ranks is 3,472, and the number granted to other persons is 8,142. Of the latter, 5,258 were given through the Army Officers Emergency Reserve, and 1,828 were in the Royal Army Medical Corps and Royal Army Chaplains Department.

Mr. Ede: asked the Secretary of State for War what specific subjects form


the basis of the recommendations on which soldiers serving in the ranks are considered for commissions?

Mr. Stanley: Apart from the technical arms, for which appropriate technical qualifications are required, no specific subjects are prescribed. Selection is based on personality, power of leadership and intelligence.

CONSIDERE CONSTRUCTIONS, LIMITED.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the firm of Considere Constructions, Limited, have intimated to their clients that Major Graham T. Lyall, V.C., M.Inst. B.E., who is in command of the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Divisional Royal Army Ordnance Corps in Scotland, is still available for appointments in connection with the furtherance of this firm's commercial interests; and whether he is satisfied that this is in the public interest?

Mr. Stanley: I have called for a report on this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

WAR ZONE VISITS (CHILDREN).

Mr. Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in any future arrangements made for children to visit the war zone in France for any purpose, he will require satisfactory assurances which will prevent subsequent publication of matters of opinion and viewpoints reached by these children?

Mr. Stanley: It is not likely that children will visit the war zone in future, but any civilian who is permitted to pay a visit will be warned of the necessity of guarding against any disclosure of information on the subject.

Mr. Lyons: Does that mean that in the case of any honour bestowed upon any member of the British Expeditionary Force of any rank, the same facilities will be afforded to the children of that serving soldier as were afforded in this case?

Mr. Stanley: I am glad to have the opportunity of dispelling some misconceptions which my hon. and learned Friend has. The visit to which he referred was paid on the direct invitation of General Gamelin, who was conducting the investiture.

Mr. Lyons: In the case of any other serving soldier in the British Expeditionary Force, would the same facilities be afforded to his children?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, investitures are usually performed not in the field but in London.

Mr. Thurtle: May we take it that in future any such visits will be strongly discouraged?

Mr. Stanley: This was a very exceptional circumstance, as it was at the invitation of General Gamelin.

MISS UNITY MITFORD.

Mr. Levy: asked the Secretary of State for War who ordered the military precautions which were taken at the port at which Miss Unity Mitford arrived from Germany; what was the reason for the military guard; how many troops were engaged on this special duty; whether they were brought to the port by omnibuses; whether street traffic was partially restricted; and why people who had gone to the port to meet friends and relatives were ordered away from the dockside and told that they must meet these friends and relatives at Victoria Station, London?

Mr. Collindridge: asked the Secretary of State for War who was responsible for military escort being given to Miss Unity Mitford when she recently arrived in this country from Germany; and what was the reason for this course being taken, with the consequent waste of public money?

Mr. Stanley: No special military precautions were taken on this occasion. Folkestone Harbour is a "protected place," and as such has been guarded since the outbreak of war. Entry to the dockside is at all times prohibited except to those in possession of a special permit, and no persons with regular permits were refused.

Mr. Levy: Are we to understand that no special precautions were taken, and that no expense of any description was entered into by the Government with regard to the arrival of this young lady?

Mr. Stanley: So far as the military authorities are concerned, I understand that there was none. The only difference was that, although the normal guard was there, two extra sentries were posted for a short time.

OLD SOLDIERS (SERVICE CONDITIONS).

Sir J. Smedley Crooke: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that ex-service men, aged up to 50, who were invited to re-enlist and were told that it would be for home service only, but who, on joining, were sent with the British Expeditionary Force to France on the outbreak of war, are now complaining of being misled; that some of these old soldiers have now been sent back owing to illness and are in hospitals waiting medical boards, and how and when are they to be compensated for the non-fulfilment of the War Office undertaking?

Mr. Stanley: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any such cases, I will have them investigated.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Supplementary Reservists in the Royal Army Pay Corps who were called up at the outbreak of war are being sent overseas, irrespective of their age or whether they are married or single, whilst regular members of the unit, many of whom are young and single, are remaining at home; whether he is also aware that many of the men who enlisted in the Supplementary Reserve did so on the understanding that they would not be called upon to serve overseas; and whether he will have inquiries made into this complaint?

Mr. Stanley: Supplementary Reservists of the Royal Army Pay Corps are liable on mobilisation to serve in any part of the world, and this liability is made clear in the declaration signed on enlistment. I am not aware of any enlistments on a contrary understanding. The regular soldiers of the corps who remain at home are mainly either experienced clerks on whom the expansion of pay offices is being built up, or inexperienced clerks and learners.

CIVILIAN DRESS.

Major Cazalet: asked the Secretary of State for War under what conditions serving officers and other ranks may wear civilian dress when on leave?

Mr. Stanley: Officers and other ranks from the British Expeditionary Force, when on leave in the United Kingdom, may wear civilian dress if they wish; and all ranks, whether on leave or not, may

wear plain clothes for athletic exercise for which a special dress is necessary.

Major Cazalet: Would my right hon. Friend pay special regard to the soldier in this country who is getting his week's privilege leave and has been issued with only one uniform, and wishes to have that cleaned? He cannot spend the whole leave in bed.

Mr. Stanley: I will certainly look into any circumstances which compel any soldier to spend the whole of his leave in bed, but I doubt whether in fact such circumstances do arise.

Mr. Thorne: Are any members of the Forces allowed to come to this House in civilian clothes without a special order?

Mr. Stanley: The rule depends on whether soldiers are on leave from the British Expeditionary Force or not.

Major Cazalet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his predecessor has given authority to Members of this House to attend the House in civilian clothes, although he has no authority whatever over them in this House?

AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE (CLERICAL DUTIES).

Mr. Banfield: asked the Secretary of State for War the cost to the State, respectively, of employing an Auxiliary Territorial Service girl on clerical work and a temporary clerk, allowance being made for the unemployment pay which the clerk would otherwise receive; and how many of the Auxiliary Territorial Service are employed on typing duties?

Mr. Stanley: The cost of a member of the Auxiliary Territorial Service of the rank of volunteer engaged on clerical duties may be taken as from 40s. to 45s. a week in respect of pay, rations and accommodation. In addition, she receives free uniform and medical and dental treatment. She has opportunities of promotion involving increased pay up to 33s. 3d. a week extra. The rates of pay of temporary women clerks aged 18 and upwards vary from 31s. to 57s. a week. I am unable to say how many members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service are employed on typing duties. I do not agree that the employment of a woman as a member of the Auxiliary Territorial Service necessarily involves an additional issue of unemployment pay.

Mr. Banfield: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the terrible unemployment that there is among clerks, and does he not think it would be advisable to find them employment instead of calling upon the Auxiliary Territorial Service?

Mr. Stanley: I think the hon. Member overlooks the fact that most of the girls who are doing this work as members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service are professional clerks and typists, and that they themselves would be unemployed if, instead of engaging them, we engaged somebody else.

NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, TRAINING.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in order to provide non-commissioned officers old enough to command respect, he will consider the formation of schools to train volunteers for the position of sergeant?

Mr. Stanley: It is considered that the existing system of promotion by merit: gives the best results.

Sir A. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that in the units now under training the lack of senior non-commissioned officers of standing is very much felt?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot agree that it would be a good thing to have people enlisting specially as non-commissioned officers. They should, I think, do what they have always had to do in the past —prove their merits, and get promotion in that way.

Mr. Attlee: Are there at present any training schools for non-commissioned officers recommended in their units? Is there a shortage of such training establishments in this country?

Mr. Stanley: I will certainly look into that.

YOUTHS (SERVICE ABROAD).

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the announcement made by the Government that young men under 20 years of age would not be sent abroad applies to all sections of the Army; and, if so, whether he will take steps to arrange for this being carried out in the case of Territorials?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the terms of the announcement, and I would refer him to the answer given by my predecessor to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on 17th October last.

CHURCH BUILDINGS, GOLCAR (REQUISITION).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to reply to the representations, made on behalf of the Parkwood Methodist Church, Golcar, for the return to them of their Sunday school and institute, now being only partially used by the military authorities?

Mr. Stanley: I much regret that, owing to the lack of any suitable alternative accommodation in the neighbourhood, it is not possible to release these buildings.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the drill hall is not being fully used, and that the loss of both these buildings means a great financial hardship to the church concerned? Could he not see his way to allow them to have at least one of the buildings?

Mr. Stanley: I have looked into the question of whether full use is being made of the local drill hall, and I am informed that it is. I very much regret the inconvenience, but this is a particularly difficult area for billeting, and at the moment there is no alternative accommodation.

WELSH SOLDIERS (NON-WELSH UNITS).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War how many men called up under the Military Service Act from Wales are now serving with non-Welsh regiments and units; and whether they were or are now being given a choice of serving in Welsh regiments or other Welsh military units?

Mr. Stanley: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available, but men who are registered in Wales are, as far as possible, posted to Welsh units.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his predecessor in office gave a specific promise to Wales on this matter, and is the promise being implemented?

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps my hon. Friend would bring details of any particular case


to my notice. Wherever possible the desired choice is met, but it is not always Practicable to post men as suggested.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is some justifiable feeling in Wales on this question, and has he not received representations from public bodies? Will he look into the matter?

Mr. Stanley: I remember seeing some resolutions. If my hon. Friend will bring to my notice any specific cases, I will inquire into them, and see whether these men cannot be posted to Welsh units.

PROFESSIONAL SPORTSMEN.

Major Milner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether preference in promotion is being granted to sports professionals commissioned or enlisted in the Army; and on what grounds are they given special facilities in regard to leave?

Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative; and to the second that I am not aware of any special facilities.

Major Milner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable public dissatisfaction at certain promotions, and of the promotion of at least one young cricketer, and that professional footballers are promoted to sergeant instructors and given week-end leave regularly in order to play in matches?

Mr. Stanley: My information is that these coaches and boxers have been enlisted in the ordinary way as privates and have been sent to Army schools for physical training and trained as instructors, and, if they qualify at the school as instructors, they rank as sergeants, just as anybody else does who qualifies.

Major Milner: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into one or two specific cases if I send him particulars?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.

EDUCATIONAL CORPS.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War for what reason the Army Education Corps has been abandoned; what steps are being taken to pursue the recommendations of the Gore11 scheme made in the last great war; whether any consultations have taken place with the Board of Education with

respect to education facilities for militiamen; and what encouragement is being given to the voluntary bodies in adult education to arrange informal or group study among the soldiers?

Mr. Stanley: The Army Educational Corps has not been abandoned. Although a proportion of its personnel were called on to perform other duties on mobilization, the remainder are still employed on educational work. A scheme was drawn up before the war, in consultation with the Board of Education, for the provision of educational facilities for militiamen. This was interrupted by the outbreak of war, but preparations are now being made to put into operation a scheme on similar lines, and voluntary bodies are co-operating. The scheme is on the lines of the Gorell scheme.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether some generous financial grant can be made available for the spread of this work, and also do his utmost to obtain encouragement from military authorities all over the country in order that this work can be done efficiently?

Mr. Stanley: Certainly. I regard work of this kind, whether it takes the form of direct lectures or, as in some instances during the last war, education by correspondence, as being of the utmost importance, and I certainly will do everything myself, and press upon everybody the necessity of helping on this work.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the number of members of the Army Educational Corps who are still left to deal with this work will be enough properly to conduct this scheme?

Mr. Stanley: I am not quite certain that a scheme of this kind is necessarily best conducted merely by the personnel of the Army Educational service. It is, of course, a quite different type of education from that which they were giving in peace time.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the Minister agree to give the same facilities to all such educational bodies in the country to carry on such educational work in the Army?

Mr. Stanley: Facilities cannot be given to people indiscriminately. They must


form part of the co-ordinated scheme, but we shall welcome the co-operation of anybody in it.

Mr. Woodburn: But postal courses would not interfere with your whole scheme.

GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL (PALESTINE CLASP).

Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Makins: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the grant of the General Service Medal with Palestine clasp to officers and men of Royal Air Force units who served in Palestine and Trans-Jordan between April, 1936, and 3rd September, 1939, is applicable to members of the Army who served in Palestine in that period?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.

UNIFORMS.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended that each soldier should have two sets of uniform; what instructions have been issued to this effect to commanding officers; and what steps are being taken to supply the necessary uniforms?

Mr. Stanley: Except in a theatre of war, every soldier is entitled to two suits of uniform. This is laid down in the authorised scale of clothing. The second suits are being issued as rapidly as supplies permit.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Assuming that the supply position warranted it, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the second walking-out dress issued to Highland regiments should invariably be the kilt? [Interruption.] Why not?

Mr. Stanley: The battle dress, in whatever form it is issued or for whatever purpose it is made, does, in fact, form a reserve for the extra uniform which is to be used in fighting.

Mr. MacLaren: Why does not the hon. Member himself try the kilt on to-day?

RESTAURANTS AND HOTELS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many commanding officers have threatened to place hotels and public-houses out of bounds to their troops if the

proprietors do not restrict entry to the whole or part of their premises to officers; and, as this is contrary to the spirit of the democratisation of the Army, what action he proposes to take to see that commanding officers carry out the Government's policy on this matter?

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the objections that have been made to private soldiers dining in the same hotel or restaurant as an officer; whether the objection is supported by the War Office in any form, or by any military authority, national or local; and will he make an explicit statement on this matter?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for War what action he is taking in cases reported to him of military authorities issuing instructions forbidding the serving of meals to privates in the same restaurants or hotel rooms used by officers?

Mr. Stanley: I am not aware of any cases of the kind referred to. Instructions have been issued making it clear that officers and soldiers are not prohibited from taking meals or refreshments together in clubs, hotels or restaurants, and that there is no objection to soldiers in uniform attending such places. If any case is brought to notice of the issue of orders inconsistent with these instructions, the matter will be investigated and appropriate action taken.

Mr. Dalton: Does the answer also cover public houses?

Mr. Stanley: I think that the term used, "hotels and restaurants" is a generic term.

Mr. Thurtle: Will the right hon. Gentleman not only wait until specific cases are brought to his notice but issue a notice to officers commanding that they should not approach local restaurants or hotels in order to have exclusive facilities for officers?

Mr. Stanley: The instruction has been issued and I referred to it in my answer, and if specific cases of neglect or difficulties arise I will investigate them.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, therefore, that any licensee who is approached by a commanding or other


officer may ignore such approach and feel quite sure that no action will be taken against him?

Mr. Stanley: I would like to know the circumstances. It may be a question of misconduct and, if so, the commanding officer would be entitled to put the place out of bounds, but if any case were brought to my notice on the lines I have mentioned, as I say, I will investigate it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the impossibility of voluntary hospitals being able to maintain and extend their services in such a way as to meet the urgent needs of the sick and injured, he is prepared, in view of the national emergency, to organise the whole hospital system on a sound economic basis, coordinated and planned to meet the needs of the population?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): The Scottish Hospital Service is being expanded and in many respects co-ordinated to meet emergency conditions, and it will be my aim to secure that the most effective use possible in present circumstances will be made of all available beds.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and the municipality and other similar institutions are evidently finding great difficulty in coming to any agreement as to the co-ordination of hospital services; and does not he agree that in the present emergency there is a suitable opportunity for bringing all these bodies together in such a way as to establish a proper hospital service throughout the country?

Mr. Colville: I am closely in touch with the representatives of the institution to which the hon. Member referred, and of the voluntary hospitals in general. I am very anxious to go as fully into the matter as I can.

ALLOTMENTS.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the measure of response to his campaign for the creation of war gardens in Scotland giving the

numbers of such gardens or allotments by counties?

Mr. Colville: I have been in communication with the 394 town and district councils in Scotland who are responsible for the provision of allotments. Information furnished by the majority of these authorities indicates that they are actively engaged in stimulating and meeting local demands. Precise figures which would show the response to the campaign are not available at this stage.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (GLASGOW).

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the discontent in Glasgow, owing to the fact that there is no provision for the elementary education of children in the city; that one hour per week at school is of no practical educational importance; and whether he will consider reopening all the schools and keeping them in session until it is shown that danger is involved in such a step, as cinemas have now been reopened and children are no safer in such places than in the city's schools?

Mr. Colville: I am aware that provision is not yet available for all the primary school children in Glasgow. I am informed, however, that 45,000 primary school children are at present attending school in Glasgow for about one-third of the normal school time and that an additional 8,000 are receiving group instruction. Shelter accommodation is being provided as rapidly as possible and further children will be admitted as soon as this is available. While I am not prepared to take the risk of authorising schools to reopen without some form of shelter accommodation, I have informed the Glasgow Education Authority that reopening need not be delayed until the whole of that accommodation is provided, so long as the number in attendance at any one time does not exceed the number for whom shelter is available.

Mr. Stephen: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us a list of the schools where these 45,000 children are obtaining their education, because I do not believe it?

Mr. Colville: I have not a list of the schools. The information I have is from the local authority.

Mr. Stephen: I do not believe them.

HOUSING (BORROWFIELD, GLASGOW).

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have been completed in the Borrowfield housing scheme in the Camlachie Division of Glasgow; and whether the provision of houses in this overcrowded area will be pressed forward in spite of war conditions, in view of the great housing hardship of the workers in this area?

Mr. Colville: I regret to say that no houses have yet been completed at Barrowfield owing to shortage of timber. Should further supplies become available, I shall keep the position of Barrowfield in mind. In the meantime, I am having active consideration given to the general question of completing houses by alternative methods of construction.

EVACUATED CHILDREN (PARENTS' VISITS).

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the discontent among parents of evacuated children who have been evacuated to places hundreds of miles from their homes, owing to the fact that no provision is made for payment of rail fares of parents who wish to visit their children from time to time, or of cheap excursions for more than one day; and whether he will consider taking steps to assist parents to have the opportunity of visiting their children who are evacuated to places at such long distances from their own homes?

Mr. Colville: Day trips at reduced fares have already been run from Edinburgh and Dundee and I hope that with the cooperation of Glasgow Corporation it will shortly be possible to provide similar facilities for Glasgow parents. Only a relatively small number of children have been evacuated to areas outside the range of day trips but the Minister of Transport and I are considering the question of arranging trips at reduced fares to the remoter Scottish areas to which the return journey cannot be made in one day.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that where the children are hundreds of miles away the parents should get some financial assistance in order to visit them?

Mr. Colville: I am looking into the matter with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Transport to see what can be done in those cases where

the parents are living long distances away from their children.

Mr. Stephen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many families have been away for more than three months and have never had an opportunity of seeing their parents during that time? Does he realise the importance of this matter?

Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for another Secret Session?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. I am not aware of any general demand for another Secret Session.

Mr. Adams: Are there not several important topics, such as export trade, air strength, and even Supply again, which can be most usefully debated?

ECONOMIC WARFARE

Mr. Levy: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the economic direction of the war; and whether he will now reconsider the creation of a central directing organisation for the economic war?

The Prime Minister: This is not a subject which can be dealt with by Question and answer. I understand that the Opposition propose to raise this matter shortly, and perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to await the statement which will be made on behalf of the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

CURRENCY (EXPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the comprehensive economic agreement which has now been arrived at between France and Great Britain, he will consider relaxing the restrictions at present imposed upon the export of currency from one country to the other?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): These and cognate questions are kept under constant review by the two Treasuries in accordance with the spirit of the Anglo-French Financial Agreement.

Mr. Boothby: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any real relaxation of the present stringent rules may possibly be expected in the near future?

Sir J. Simon: I cannot give any pledge about that. As my hon. Friend knows there are special considerations involved.

ARMED FORCES (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES).

Mr. Denville: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider exempting from Customs and Excise Duty tobacco, beer, wines, minerals, etc., supplied to British and Imperial Forces?

Sir J. Simon: If my hon. Friend is referring to Forces in this country, I regret that I could not contemplate any general exemption such as my hon. Friend suggests. I would, however, remind him that under Customs Regulations the commodities referred to may be sent free of United Kingdom Duty to His Majesty's Forces serving abroad and to His Majesty's sea-going ships in commission.

GRASSLAND PLOUGHING (TITHE REMISSION).

Sir William Wayland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the fact that the acceptance of the Government grant towards the breaking up of land, and any further increased expenditure by the owner will lead to an increased assessment to Schedule B, and therefore an increase in tithe annuity where remission has previously been allowed, will he allow the tithe remission to remain on the basis of April, 1939, in order to encourage war production?

Sir J. Simon: It is not to be assumed that the ploughing-up of land in respect of which a grant is paid would of itself normally involve an increased assessment for the purposes of Income Tax Schedule B, but in any event my hon. Friend's proposal, which incidentally would require legislation to implement it, is not one which I am prepared to accept.

TREASURY BILLS.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Treasury Bill rate is 100 per cent, higher than the pre-war rate; and will the Government

exercise the powers they now possess over the country's financial system and so reduce this rate?

Sir J. Simon: The average rate from 1st April, 1939, to 24th August, when the Bank rate was raised, was 17s. 5d. The present rate is 21s. 9d. for a considerably larger offering of Bills. The rate is fixed by competitive public tender.

BANK RATE.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the level of the Bank rate is now at the unfettered discretion of the Treasury, he will reduce the rate to 1½per cent.?

Sir J. Simon: I am not prepared to forecast the future course of Bank rate. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on 7th November and the 21st November last, while I am in constant communication with the Bank of England, the decision as to changing or maintaining the Bank rate is made by the Court of the Bank of England.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Treasury Bill rate, to which he referred in the previous Question, is maintained at its high level because of the high Bank rate; and in justice to the joint stock banks is it not imperative that this should be reduced so we may have a lower Treasury Bill rate? At the present time the cost to the taxpayer is over £17,000,000 per annum.

Sir J. Simon: The whole of my hon. Friend's Supplementary Question was rather addressed to his last Question and not to the present one.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: The right hon. Gentleman asks us to spend wisely. May I suggest to him that the Treasury should set an example?

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when speaking anywhere in future, get his speech over to these people and not to the workers all the time?

INFLATION.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are in contemplation to prevent the evil of inflation?

Sir J. Simon: It is hardly possible to deal with so large a topic within the limits of a Parliamentary Answer, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the restrictions on consumption which are represented by war taxation, to the strict control of imports and the rationing of certain supplies, to the promotion of savings, and to the declarations recently made by the Prime Minister and myself on the subject of the relation of war conditions to prices and increases of income.

Mr. Adams: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer assure me that he will remain aware of the dangers?

Sir J. Simon: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for jogging my memory.

EXCESS PROFITS TAX.

Major Stourton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Excess Profits Tax in its present form bears inequitably upon the cotton industry which has had to carry the full effect of prolonged economic depression and been forced to liquidate its reserves, and that by contrast sheltered industries have built up strong reserves and their standard is sufficiently high to guarantee a satisfactory return to shareholders before a penny is paid to the Exchequer in Excess Profits Tax; and what steps does he propose to take to amend the present anomalous position?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 16th of November last to a Question put by my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). I am sending him a copy of that reply.

Major Stourton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every encouragement should be given to the cotton trade at the present time as one of the great exporting industries?

COMMANDEERED BUILDINGS (LOCAL RATES).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in seaside and other resorts large sums for local authority rate purposes are ordinarily collected from hotels and other buildings now commandeered by Government which are payable before the end of March; and whether any payments will be made to the owners of such

properties so as to enable them to meet their dues in rates in good time?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Appropriate grants in lieu of rates have been made and will continue to be made to local authorities in respect of hotels and other buildings which have been requisitioned for Government use. Such grants, however, are made directly to the local authorities and not to the owners, who cease to be rateable when they vacate the premises.

Mr. Davies: Is that being done all over the country or only in certain cases?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot answer off-hand, but what I have said is what should happen. If there has been any delay anywhere perhaps the hon. Member will let me know.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS

Mr. Riley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make a statement on the question of an increase to old age pensions?

Mr. Salt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the inquiry now being made regarding old age pensions includes consideration of pensions for spinsters at 55 years of age, and whether he can now make a statement?

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to improved financial payments to old age pensioners, and if not, can he inform the House when such a statement may be made?

Mr. Markham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make a statement on the subject of an increase in old age and widows' pensions?

Mr. Leslie Boyce: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the Government's policy in respect of old age pensions?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to make a statement on an increase in the old age pension?

Mr. Magnay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a


position to say what the Government have decided to do regarding the matter of old age pensions?

Mr. Mander: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to make a statement with reference to old age pensions; and whether it is proposed at the same time to deal with widows' and spinsters' pensions?

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make his statement on the question of an increase in old age pensions?

Mr. Graham White: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make any statement on the Government inquiry into old age pensions?

Sir J. Simon: I would ask these hon. Members to await the statement I propose to make at the end of Questions to-day.

Mr. Salt: Is my hon. Friend aware that while strongly supporting an increase in old age pensions spinsters consider that their claims should also be considered at the same time? Can he say whether that will be so?

Sir J. Simon: Will the hon. Member be good enough to await my statement at the end of Questions?

Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of these aged spinsters are in just as tragic circumstances?

Later—

Sir J. Simon: I propose to ask the permission of the House to make a rather longer statement than is usual at the end of Questions. All Members are greatly interested in the subject of old age pensions, and it would be misleading to give a summary of the Government's intentions without briefly giving some of the reasons which have weighed with us. The House will remember that when we last debated this question—on 1st November last—I indicated the Government's intention to resume the investigation which had been promised by the Prime Minister on 27th July but had to be postponed on the outbreak of war. I promised to get in touch at once with representatives of employers and workers as the contributing parties under the contributory scheme and discuss with them the possibility of improvements. Those discussions have now taken place and the

whole problem has been explored with a view to seeing what improvements are most needed and how the cost could be met. It was agreed at the outset of the discussions that they should be regarded as confidential and I am not in a position to indicate the views expressed by either party.
The scheme which I am about to outline is the Government's own scheme, but in framing it we have paid close attention to the considerations urged upon us by the representatives of the two contributing parties. There are nearly 3,000,000 old age pensioners over the age of 65 in this country. Most of them, of course, are drawing contributory pensions, but included in the total are 550,000 who are over 70 and whose pension is subject to a test of means. It is natural, when considering the need for improving the pensions system, to concentrate on the case of the pensioner who has no additional resources other than public assistance. But investigation shows that this class of case, which certainly calls for our special consideration and with which I intend to deal, is exceptional. For instance, the latest available figures show that there are at least 375,000 pensioners earning wages in employment—under war conditions the number must be growing. Some may well be earning salaries. Some are Income Tax payers. Large numbers receive supplementary pensions under works' superannuation schemes. A large proportion, no doubt, live with sons or daughters and share the family roof and the family table. It is the minority who have not these additional means of support whose case needs especially to be considered, and the Government propose to deal with the matter by supplementing pensions, where necessary, from central funds, rather than by a flat rate addition all round which, while it is really not needed in many cases, might well prove insufficient where help is most required.
There is a further objection to adopting the method of flat rate addition which I must state plainly to the House. Although pensions under the 1925 Act are called "contributory," the greater part of the money needed to pay them is being provided, not by contributions from employer and workman, but by the general taxpayer. The State contribution to contributory pensions is at present no less than 60 per cent. of the whole; in addition, the State, of course, pays the


whole of the non-contributory pensions. I have seen no scheme for increasing, by means of a flat rate addition, the scale of old age pensions all round which would not involve heavy further burdens on public funds, which we ought not to incur in present circumstances without being satisfied of their necessity. If the existing contributory pension was to be brought up to a substantially higher figure—say by adding 5s. a week—by an increase of weekly contributions alone, the weekly contribution for men would have to be raised from 11d. to 1s. 9d. at once and to 2s. 1d. in five years' time, with corresponding increases in the case of women's contributions. Without questioning the willingness of both parties to industry to make some contribution towards an improvement in the existing scheme, an addition of this magnitude is plainly not practicable in present circumstances.
Our latest information is that about 275,000 pensioners get additional relief from public assistance authorities and the annual cost of such relief is in the region of £5,250,000. We propose to take away altogether from the local authorities their present liability to supplement old age pensions, including the pensions of widows over 60 and to place this obligation upon central funds with some appropriate adjustment of finances under the block grant. It will be discharged by a central organisation analogous to the Unemployment Assistance Board under the supervision of the Minister of Health in England and Wales and of the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland. Further, we propose that the present family needs test as administered by public assistance committees, which has regard to the income of all liable relatives wherever they reside, should be replaced by the household needs test as now applied in the case of applicants for unemployment assistance. We should not be justified in relieving from all obligation sons and daughters who live in the same house as their aged parents and can make some reasonable contribution to their parents' maintenance. This has been the practice in this country from time immemorial, and it is based on sound social instincts. In considering the need of an old age pensioner we should not, however, take into account the resources of sons and daughters who do not live with

their parents but have establishments of their own. The supplementary grant, when fixed, will in most cases not call for constant revision and will really be of the nature of a supplementary pension. It will be paid through the Post Office as is the practice at present with the 10s. pensions.
There are two other changes in the present system of contributory pensions which we see our way to introduce. The first has to do with the wife who is younger than her husband when the latter becomes entitled at the age of 65 to his pension of 10s. The hardship in this case is accentuated where a couple has been in receipt of unemployment benefit or assistance before the husband was 65, since he was previously receiving an allowance for his wife as well as for himself but this ceases when he reaches the age of 65. We have therefore decided to recommend Parliament to lower the age for wives under the contributory scheme to 60, provided their husbands are 65 or over. This involves also considering the admission to pension at 60 of women who are insured in their own right and we have decided to provide for these women also in our proposals. The cost of these two concessions is slightly over £8,000,000 a year at the present time, rising to £10,000,000 in 10 years' time. We propose to meet this cost in the immediate future by appropriate additions to contributions—namely, 2d. per week in respect of men and 3d. per week in respect of women—though, as the years pass, the change will involve an added burden on the Exchequer unless the whole contributory basis of the pension scheme is revised.
The above proposals will require legislation which will be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. The Bill is being prepared and will be presented to the House without delay. We hope to obtain a Second Reading as soon as possible and to make substantial progress with the measure before the Easter Adjournment.
To sum up, the plan I have outlined will, in effect, establish supplementary pensions payable through the Post Office for those who, from the absence of other resources, need them; it will remove from local authorities the burden to which they have frequently drawn attention, of providing relief for old age pensioners by supplementary assist-


ance; it will place this obligation upon central funds under more acceptable conditions; and it will enlarge the benefits of the contributory scheme so as to include within it wives and insured women over 60. These are the general intentions of the Government and I hope the House will await the Bill for more precise details.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can say what is the basis on which these supplementary pensions are to be paid, or the amount?

Sir J. Simon: There will not be any limit. I regard that as an advantage as compared with fixing a figure like 5s. because I have no doubt that in some cases it will be more than that. There will not be a limit; there will be a scale and the supplement will be fixed having regard to the need of the pensioner.

Mr. Attlee: Does it amount to anything more than a subvention to local authorities for relief?

Sir J. Simon: It amounts to a great deal more. It amounts first of all to providing for regular payments through the Post Office for those people who feel, and I think naturally feel, a considerable sense of humiliation because they have to apply weekly for relief from local authorities.

Mr. Graham White: While expressing much satisfaction at many of the things which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us, may I ask whether, in addition to the 275,000 old age pensioners who are we know in such need that they are obliged to go to the public assistance committee he has in the course of his inquiries also taken into account the number estimated at perhaps 200,000, who are suffering need no less than the 275,000 who already go to the public assistance committee, but who because they are too stout-hearted or for other reasons, will not go to the public assistance committee and who would appear, under what he has told us, to escape from this scheme?

Sir J. Simon: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in his concluding sentence. Although, I think, from the inquiries which I have made, that it is true that there are people who would be justified in asking for local relief but who from a sense of independence and pride do not

do so, I should think that the estimate which the hon. Gentleman mentioned is necessarily quite without foundation. How can anyone possibly know? At any rate the scheme which I have indicated is a scheme which applies equally to those who go and to those who do not go for public relief.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that mine workers are now accepting weekly deductions from their wages under arrangements in particular collieries—and that is being done in other works as well—and can he say whether such supplementary allowances, granted by working miners to pensioned miners, will be taken into consideration when these cases are examined?

Sir J. Simon: That is a rather detailed question, and I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I would sooner it was dealt with when we have the Bill before us. I appreciate the point.

Mr. Holdsworth: Are we to take it from the scheme which my right hon. Friend has just put forward that spinsters over 60 will get 10s. a week?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stephen: While expressing my utter disappointment at the announcement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is going to carry out the investigation for this new operation of the means test? Is it to be the public assistance authorities or the Unemployment Assistance Board, or is he going to create new machinery?

Sir J. Simon: It will be carried out by a central authority. The local authorities will be entirely relieved from the duty. The Minister in the House who will be answerable will be the Minister of Health, and, as I indicated, the scheme is to be carried out by an extension of the organisation of the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think this an uncharitable question, but is it not a fair assumption that when the Board is set up to which these 275,000 will have to apply the net effect of what they gain through going to that Board will in fact be lost by what they have been getting from the public assistance committees, and the position will be exactly as it was?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think that is so. I fully expect that when this scheme is working in connection with central funds, the effect will be to increase the assistance.

Mr. Attlee: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there will be very serious disappointment among all pensioners affected that there is no increase in the basic pension?

Sir J. Simon: I think it is too early to be sure what the response will be. I would prefer to await the more mature reflections of the public rather than attempt to reply to immediate reactions, but I think there will be a great many old age pensioners who will appreciate that by this method they will get, not an extra 5s. a week, but more than that, and under conditions which are entirely honourable to themselves.

Viscountess Astor: I believe that many old age pensioners will be deeply grateful for the concession and that my right hon. Friend is going a long way to meet a very great need, but may I ask whether it would not be possible just to make the spinsters' pension come a little earlier, because in these days it is very difficult for women over 50 to get a job, as so many young girls enter into industry at a very early age? Would it be at all possible to grant it a little earlier than 60—to give it, possibly, at 55?

Sir J. Simon: I am afraid that I could not encourage my hon. Friend on that point, but I will gladly consider it.

Mr. Woodburn: Am I correct in understanding that when the needs of the old age pensioners are calculated under the household means test, they will be treated with not less consideration than under the present Unemployment Assistance Board's scale?

Sir J. Simon: That is, broadly speaking, the intention.

Mr. Boothby: Has my right hon. Friend made any estimate of the total additional cost to the Exchequer of all these proposals?

Sir J. Simon: Naturally that has been looked into, but I think a statement will probably be better made when the Bill is discussed.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Do I understand that the work of the Excise officers who have hitherto been employed

with regard to a very large number of the non-contributory pensioners, and which has given considerable satisfaction, will be entirely superseded by the new machinery and that we shall have other officers dealing with these matters?

Sir J. Simon: I speak subject to correction, but I think not. Nothing that I have said suggested it, and I do not see why it should be so. I recognise that the Excise officers' work has been largely recognised as helpful, and I do not think it is touched at all.

Mr. G. Strauss: Will the scale to which the right hon. Gentleman referred be attached to the Bill in the form of a Schedule; will it be a subject for discussion and Amendment in the House?

Sir J. Simon: That is a very important practical administrative point, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to he good enough to await the circulation of the Bill. I hardly think I can go into all these administrative matters now.

Mr. Denman: Can my right hon. Friend give the approximate number of women who will be benefited by the reduction in age?

Sir J. Simon: I cannot tell my hon. Friend off-hand, but I will make an inquiry.

Mr. A. Jenkins: Did I correctly understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that with regard to the cost of the increase of the pensions, whatever the payment be, there will be an adjustment of the block grant, and if that is so. and it is treated in the same way as taking over the trunk roads was treated, will it not be a cost, not to the Government at all, but a mere redistribution of the cost among the local authorities?

Sir J. Simon: I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait and see how it will be expressed. I suggest that he should wait because he will find that his assumption is quite wrong.

TATE GALLERY DIRECTOR.

Mr. MacLaren: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Curator of the Tate Gallery is still being paid full salary; and, now that the Gallery is closed, what duties does he perform?

Captain Crookshank: I presume the hon. Member refers to the Director and Keeper of the Tate Gallery. This officer is being paid his usual salary. It is part of the normal duties of such officers to maintain contact with art institutions abroad, and the officer in question is at present performing such duties in North America where he is delivering a series of lectures under the auspices of the National Gallery of Canada, and arranging for the proper care of British pictures which have been on loan at the New York World Fair.

Mr. MacLaren: May I ask whether he receives a fee or salary from the people he is now visiting?

Captain Crookshank: I should have to have notice of that Question?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINING ACCIDENTS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretly for Mines whether he is aware of the increased number of coal miners' deaths due to falls of ground at the working face in the coal mines of the Northern division; and whether, as these deaths are shown to have increased whether calculated on a basis of manshifts worked, million tons raised, or per thousand persons employed, he can account for the fact that this increase is more serious and more uniform in the mines of the North of England than in other coalfields; and what steps are proposed in connection therewith?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I regret that the figures for deaths due to falls of ground at the working face in the Northern Division for 1938 show some increase over the average for the years 1935 to 1937, but they are practically the same as the average rate for Great Britain. Everything possible is done to ensure the carrying out of the regulations designed to decrease the risk to life in the mines.

Mr. Adams: Are particular steps being taken in order to avoid this great increase in deaths?

Mr. Lloyd: The inspectors of the Mines Department are always aware of this problem and are in particular giving their attention to it.

Mr. Paling: Is the increase in the number of deaths due to any increase in machinery at the coal face?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the serious increases in the numbers of coal-miners killed owing to blows from projected material resulting from shot-firing, and to accidents from electricity in 1938 in the mines of the Northern division; and what remedial measures have been applied or are in contemplation?

Mr. Lloyd: I would suggest that it is unwise to draw too many conclusions from variations in the figures from one year to the next. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no slackening in the effort to ensure the carrying out of the statutory precautions against these classes of accidents.

Mr. Adams: Is the Secretary of Mines considering the desirability of making the use of safety lamps obligatory as they are known to be a remedial measure?

Mr. Lloyd: There has been no change in the regulations.

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the substantial increase in the output in the coal industry in Great Britain during the last three months has adversely affected the accident rate in the industry; and whether all is being done, that can he done, to prevent any relaxation or disregarding of the safety regulations?

Mr. Lloyd: For the year as a whole the figures of persons killed and seriously injured compare favourably with those in previous years. As regards the latter part of the Question, the unfortunate accidents at Valleyfield Colliery and Hatfield Main Colliery naturally affected the accident rate, but apart from those two accidents the increased output has been obtained without any material effect on the accident rate.

Mr. Macdonald: Is the hon. Member aware that there have been complaints in the mining areas about the relaxation of safety regulations and will he take action in the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I am in close touch with the Miners' Federation in regard to the matter and I shall be glad to investigate any particular complaint.

WAGE NEGOTIATIONS.

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give the latest information on the wage negotiations in the coal industry; and what action he intends taking to bring about a satisfactory settlement?

Mr. Lloyd: A Joint committees representing the colliery owners and the Mineworkers' Federation have discussed certain proposals which are to be considered by the Mineworkers' Federation on Thursday of this week.

PRICES.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that Statutory Rules and Orders, 1939, No. 1557, permits the owner of a coalmine to increase the price of coal sold by him by 1s. per ton from 3rd November last, but it does not permit the distributor to pass this increase on to the industrial user; and will he take steps to correct this anomaly?

Mr. Lloyd: I regret that it is not possible to extend the scope of paragraph 2 of the Coal Prices (Inland Supply) Order, 1939.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that the extra shilling is more than the profit obtained on a ton of coal, and that the distributors are having to pay that amount?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir.

OUTPUT.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, with a view to decreasing unemployment amongst the coal-miners, the Government will take steps to increase the output from the mines and create a reserve stock of coal on the surface?

Mr. Lloyd: I am glad to say that the latest figures for the coal mining industry of the number registered as wholly unemployed show a fall of 9 per cent. since the beginning of September. At

collieries where space permits it is the normal practice to stock coal in order to avoid idle time at the colliery. In addition, my Department are now making arrangements for the creation of stocks in consuming areas.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that many collieries are not working full time because of lack of wagons to take away the coal; and will he consider, in consultation with the colliery owners, the stocking of coal, where this happens, so that supplies shall be in readiness to meet the needs that may arise in future?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware that there has been some shortage of wagons for loading, and, where it happens, the stocking of coal on the surface is a usual practice, if space is available. At the same time, as I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester (Mr. De la Bère), my Department are now making arrangements for the creation of stocks in consuming areas.

Mr. T. Williams: As the stocking of coal is a costly business will the Secretary for Mines take steps with the Minister of Transport to get transport for the coal?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter for my right hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Shinwell: Have the recent efforts of the hon. Member to get facilities for the transport of coal had any beneficial effect?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that in many towns this morning there is practically no coal for distribution to householders?

Mr. Lloyd: That may be due to transport difficulties.

Mr. T. Smith: Is the Minister aware of the complaints in South Yorkshire that they are working only three days a week?

CROWN COLONIES (DEATH PENALTY).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will consider the abolition of the death penalties in respect to murder arising out of witchcraft in native communities?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Eden): I am not aware of any adequate reason for altering the law in this matter.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the obscurity of these practices among primitive people will sympathetic consideration be given to cases such as this, particularly when one person has appealed on a murder charge?

Mr. Eden: I am not aware of any adequate reasons for drawing this distinction. If the hon. Member has any reasons I should like to know them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

THE BALKANS.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade what steps are now being taken to increase our trade with the Balkans?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): A variety of steps are being taken to promote United Kingdom trade with the Balkans. They vary from country to country, according to the conditions. I fear that a detailed statement could not be given within the scope of an answer to a Parliamentary Question.

Mr. Boothby: Is full use being made of the Export Credits Guarantee Department?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir.

WAR RISKS INSURANCE.

Mr. Gledhill: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade what is the total amount received as premiums under the War Risk Insurance Act, 1939; the amount of claims and expenses to date; and whether any proceedings have been commenced against firms not complying with the terms of the Act?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): The total net amount received as premiums to date under Part II of the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, is £16,162,971 after allowing for refunds of premium made under the concession in regard to September premiums which was announced on 5th October, and in respect of goods which have been declared to be

uninsurable. Claims aggregating about £7,000 have been received. Discussions have been in progress between the Departments concerned and representatives of the insurers, who are the agents of the Board of Trade for the purposes of the commodity insurance scheme, with a view to determining the amount payable by way of expenses to the latter and it is expected that a decision on this matter will be reached in the course of the next few days. As regards the last part of the Question, the Board of Trade are taking steps with a view to ensuring compliance with its provisions, but no proceedings have yet been commenced under the Act.

Mr. Gledhill: In view of the large accumulation of funds, is it not time now to announce a further reduction in the rate of premium?

Major Lloyd George: I should like to have notice of that Question.

PRICES OF GOODS ORDER.

Mr. Gledhill: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the permitted increase in price-regulated goods is calculated on the August, 1939, price or on current replacement prices; and whether no control is at present applied to goods of higher value than those listed in Prices of Goods (Price Regulated Goods) No. 1 Order, 1939?

Major Lloyd George: The permitted increase in the price of price-regulated goods is defined in the Prices of Goods Act as an amount not exceeding such increase as is reasonably justified in view of changes in the business since the date as at which the basic price for the goods is to be ascertained, in relation to the matters specified in the first schedule to the Act taken as a whole. Normally the date as at which the basic price for goods is ascertained is 21st August, 1939. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Gledhill: Will my hon. and gallant Friend make it clear to retailers whether the permitted increase is a flat rate or whether it is a percentage calculated on the price of the goods?

Major Lloyd George: That is a matter under discussion at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.

STAFF.

Mr. Lyons: asked the Minister of Shipping the number of staff, other than clerical, typing and messenger staff, now engaged in his Department, excluding those transferred with their functions from the Board of Trade; what salary is paid to each officer, his designation and his previous employment; how many have had previous specialised shipping experience; how many are in receipt of
pensions and how many were recruited through the Central Register of the Ministry of Labour; and showing, separately, the numbers transferred from the Board of

1. Staff at Headquarters (including War Risks Insurance Office excluding those transferred with their functions from the Board of Trade).


Number.
Grade.
Salary Scale.
Previous Employment.
Previous Shipping Experience.


1
Director General
£3,000
Chairman, Electricity Commission.
Ministry of Shipping in last War.


1
Principal Shipping Adviser and Controller of Commercial Shipping.
Unpaid
Director of Shipping Companies.



1
Principal Assistant Secretary acting as Second Secretary.
£1,700
Principal Assistant Secretary, Commercial Relations and Treaties Department, Board of Trade.
Previously Assistant Secretary, Mercantile Marine Department, Board of Trade.


1
Principal Assistant Secretary.
£1,350-£1,750
Ministry of Finance, Northern Ireland.
Ministry of Shipping in last War.


6
Directors of Divisions
Unpaid
5 Directors or Partners of Shipping Companies. 1 Chairman of Shipbuilding Conference.



20
Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors.
Unpaid
18 Directors or Partners of Shipping Companies.2 Managers of Shipbuilding Firms.



1
Assistant Director
£800
Secretary, Shipping Organisation.



1
Statistical Adviser
Unpaid
Actuarial Expert and Consultant.
Ministry of Shipping in last War


1
Head of Statistics Division.
£1,450-£1,650
Deputy Government Actuary.



1
Financial Adviser
Unpaid
Partner infirm of Accountants.



1
Accountant General
£1,411
Assistant Secretary, Board of Trade (Retired).
Previously Assistant Secretary, Mercantile Marine Department, also Finance Department, Board of Trade.


1
Deputy Accountant General
£1,150 £1,450
Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Northern Ireland.



1
Principal Establishment Officer
£1,150-£,1450
Head of Branch, Ministry of Health.



1
Head of Secretariat
£1,100-£1,200
Staff Inspector, Board of Education.

Trade and their classifications and salaries, respectively?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping (Sir Arthur Salter): As the answer involves a long tabular statement I will, with my hon. and learned Friend's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The following statement gives the information required. The staff shown are those employed on the 1st January, 1940, excluding clerical, typing and messenger staff:

Number.
Grade.
Salary Scale.
Previous Employment.
Previous Shipping Experience.


1
Assistant Solicitor
£1,200
Barrister (in Practice)
Probate, Admiralty and Divorce Division.


1
Senior Legal Assistant
£850-£1,100
Legal Assistant, Coal Commission.



2
Superintending Examiners.
£1,00–1,200
Superintending Examiners, Patent Office



1
Principal
£800-£1,100
Principal, Board of Trade Statistics Department.
Ministry of Shipping in last War.


1
Principal
£800-£1,100
Principal, Ministry of Health.



1
Principal
£800-£1,100
Principal, Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales).
Ministry of Shipping in last War.


2
Principal
£800-£1,100
Principals, Ministry of Finance, Northern Ireland.
1 Ministry of Shipping in last War.


1
principal
£800-£1,100
Principal, Commercial Relations and Treaties Department, Board of Trade.
Previously in Mercantile Marine Department, Board of Trade.


1
Actuary
£860–1,050
Government Actuary's Department.



1
Accountant
£1,050-£1,050
Chief Accountant, Ministry of Health (Retired).



2
Principal Examiners
£850-£1,000
Principal Examiners, Patent Office.



1
Deputy Principal
£605-£953
Assistant Keeper, Victoria and Albert Museum.



1
Deputy Principal
£640-£880
Deputy Principal, Ministry of Labour, Northern Ireland.



3
Assistant Actuaries
£650-£860
Government Actuary's Department.



1
Legal Assistant
£650-£850
Legal Assistant, Ministry of Health.



5
Senior Examiners
£650-£850
Senior Examiners, Patent Office.



18
Examiners
£337-£738
Examiners, Patent Office.



1
Senior Staff Officer
£650-£750
Senior Staff Officer, Commercial Relations and Treaties Department, Board of Trade.
Previously in Mercantile Marine Department, Board of Trade.


1
Senior Staff Officer
£650-£750
Senior Staff Officer, Patent Office.
War Risks Insurance Office in last War.


1
Senior Staff Officer
£650-£750
Senior Staff Officer, Census of Production Department, Board of Trade.



1
Higher Grade Executive Officer.
£550-£650
Higher Grade Executive Officer, Department of Overseas Trade.



1
Higher Grade Executive Officer.
£550-£650
Higher Grade Executive Officer, Electricity Commission.



1
Higher Grade Executive Officer.
£550-£650
Higher Grade Executive Officer, Ministry of Labour.



1
Higher Grade Executive Officer.
£550-£650
Higher Grade Executive Officer, Ministry of Health.
Ministry of Shipping in last War.


1
Staff Officer
£550-£650
Staff Officer, Statistics Department, Board of Trade.
Ministry of Shipping in last War.

Number.
Grade.
Salary Scale.
Previous Employment.
Previous Shipping Experience.


1
Staff Officer
£550-£650
Staff Officer, General Post Office.



1
Staff Officer
£550-£650
Staff Officer, Ministry of Health.



1
Staff Officer
£550-£650
Staff Officer, Patent Office.



1
Staff Officer
£550-£650
Staff Officer, Unemployment Assistance Board.



2
Staff Officers
£550-£650
Staff Officers, General Department, Board of Trade.
1 War Risks Insurance Office in last War.


1
Staff Officer
£550-£650
Staff Officer, Patent Office.



1
Staff Officers
£550-£650
Staff Officer, Department of Overseas Trade.



1
Assistant Principal
£277-£634
Assistant Principal, Ministry of Education, Northern Ireland.



1
Assistant Postal Controller
£277-£575
Assistant Postal Controller, G.P.O.



9
Higher Grade Clerical Officers.
£400-£525
Higher Grade Clerical Officers, Patent Office.



2
Higher Grade Clerical Officers
£400-£525
Higher Grade Clerical Officers, Commercial Relations &amp; Treaties Department, Board of Trade.



1
Higher Grade Clerical Officer.
£400-£525
Higher Grade Clerical Officer, Department of Overseas Trade.



4
 Higher Grade Clerical Officer.
£400-£525
Higher Grade Clerical Officers, Ministry of Labour.
1 War Risks Insurance Office in last War.


2
Higher Grade Clerical Officer.
£400-£525
Higher Grade Clerical Officers, General Post Office.



1
Higher Grade Clerical Officer.
£400-£525
Higher Grade Clerical Officer, Ministry of Health.
Ministry of Shipping in last War.


1
Higher Grade Clerical Officer.
£400-£525
Higher Grade Clerical Officer, Government Actuary's Department.



1
Higher Grade Clerical Officer.
£400-£525
Higher Grade Clerical Officer, Census of Production, Board of Trade.
War Risks Insurance Office in last War.


2
Higher Grade Clerical Officer.
£400-£525
Higher Grade Clerical Officers, Unemploy-Assistance Board.



4
Actuarial Assistants
£150-£525
Government Actuary's Department.



1
Junior Executive Officer.
£150-£525
Junior Executive Officer, Bankruptcy Department, Board of Trade.



1
Junior Executive Officer.
£150-£525
Junior Executive Officer, General Post Office.



1
Junior Executive Officer.
£150-£525
Junior Executive Officer, Government Actuary's Department.



1
Junior Executive Officer.
£150-£525
Junior Executive Officer, Companies Department, Board of Trade.

Number.
Grade.
Salary Scale.
Previous Employment.
Previous Shipping Experience.


1
Junior Executive Officer
£150-£525
Junior Executive Officer, Patent Office.



1
Junior Executive Officer
£150-£525
New Entrant.



1
Junior Executive Officer
£150-£420
Junior Executive Officer, General Post Office.



4
Assistant Examiners
£215-£515
Assistant Examiners, Patent Office.



9
Assistant Examiners
£230-£450
Assistant Examiners, Patent Office.



1
Temporary Assistant
£600
Secretary, Church Assembly.
Ministry of Shipping in last War.


1
Temporary Assistant
Unpaid
Principal, Mines Department, (Retired.)
Ministry of Shipping in last War.


16
Commercial Assistants
Salaries between £550 and £700.
Employees of Shipping Firms.



12
Commercial Assistants
Salaries between £400 and £550.
Employees of Shipping Firms.



19
Commercial Assistants
Salaries between £250 and £400.
Employees of Shipping Firms.



2
Liaison Officers with Ministry of Economic Warfare.
Unpaid
Shipowners.



1
Liaison Officer with Admiralty.
Unpaid
Shipowner.



1
Head of Section
£700
Retired Naval Officer.



5
Naval Assistants
Borne on Ships' Books.
4 Retired Naval Officers. 1 Retired Mercantile Marine.



204






Number in receipt of pensions or retired pay prior to joining the Ministry of Shipping = 10


Number recruited through the Central Register of the Ministry of Labour = 18

2. Staff transferred with their functions from the Board of Trade.


(a) Headquarters, including General Register Office of Shipping and Seamen.


1
Secretary
£2,200


1
Principal Assistant Secretary
£1,700


1
Director of Sea Transport
£1,650


3
Assistant Secretaries
£1,150–1,500


1
Deputy Director of Sea Transport
£1,050—£1,200


1
Deputy Director of Shipping Intelligence
£1,050—£1,200


5
Principals
£800—£1,100


1
Assistant Director of Sea Transport
£900—£1,050


4
Assistant Principals
£275—£625


1
Chief Executive Officer
£900—£1,050


1
Accountant
£953


1
Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen
£900—£1,050


1
Assistant Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen
£650—£750


7
Senior Executive Officers
£700—£860

2
Senior Staff Officers
£650—£750


14
Higher Grade Executive Officers
£550—£650


17
Staff Officers and Super Clerical Officers
£550—£650


28
Higher Grade Clerical Officers
£400—£525


27
Executive Officers
£150—£525


117




LEGAL DEPARTMENT.


1
Solicitor
£1,200—£1,400


1
Senior Legal Assistant
£850—£1,100


1
Legal Assistants
£650—£850


1
Junior Legal Assistant
£315—£25


6




DRAWING OFFICIE


1
Senior Draughtsman
£307—£470


2
Draughtsmen
£210—£320


3

CONSULTATIVE STAFF.


2
Professional Officers
£1,150—£1,300


1
Engineer Surveyor-in-Chief
£1,150—£1,300


1
Deputy Engineer Surveyor-in-Chief
£900—£1,050


2
Senior Engineer Surveyors
£650—£800


3
Engineer Surveyors
£400—£650


1
Chief Ship Surveyor
£1,150—£1,300


1
Deputy Chief Ship Surveyor
£900—£1,050


1
Principal Surveyor for Tonnage
£900—£1,050


3
Senior Ship Surveyors
£650—£800


8
Ship Surveyors
£400—£650


1
Principal Examiner of Masters and Mates
£900—£1,050


1
Senior Nautical Surveyor
£650—£800


3
Nautical Surveyors
£400—£650


1
Chief Examiner of Engineers
£900—£1,050


1
Senior Engineer Surveyor
£650—£800


1
Engineer Surveyor
£400—£650


31

TECHNICAL STAFF (SEA TRANSPORT).


1
Principal Consultative Officer
£900—£1,050


2
Senior Ship Surveyors
£650—£800


4
Ship Surveyors
£400—£650


3
Senior Technical Assistants
£350—£420


8
Technical Assistants
£250—£350


18

H.M. COASTGUARD.


1
Chief Inspector
£850—£1,000


1
Deputy Chief Inspector
£700—£800


2




177

(b) Mercantile Marine Office Service at Ports.


1
Senior Chief Superintendent
£770—£860


4
Chief Superintendents
£650—£750


14
Senior Superintendents
£550—£650


36
Superintendents or Assistant Superintendents
£400—£525


55

(c) Survey Service at Ports (Technical Staff).


69
Senior Surveyors
£650—£800


113
Surveyors
£400—£650


1
Chief Inspector of Ships' Provisions
£738—£847


1
Deputy Chief Inspector of Ships' Provisions
£575—£634


6
Senior Inspectors of Ships' Provisions
£414—£575


10
Inspectors of Ships' Provisions
£215—£396

3
Temporary Nautical Surveyors
£5 and £6 (per week)


8
Senior Clerks
£375—£475


211

(d) Sea Transport Officers at home and abroad.

258
Naval Sea Transport Officers and other Naval Commissioned Staff employed on Sea Transport duties in this country and abroad. Borne on ships' Books (Admiralty).

(e) His Majesty's Coastguard.


12
Inspectors
£460—£550


41
District Officers
£240—£300


149
Station Officers
56s. 6d.—61s. (per week)


492
Coastguardsmen
45s.—54s. (per week)


694




Total of 2–1,395

MERCANTILE MARINE.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Minister of Shipping, in view of the discrepancy between British and neutral charter rates, what steps are being taken by the Government to safeguard the British shipping industry after the war?

Sir A. Salter: I can hardly deal with so large a question of policy within the limits of a Parliamentary Question and Answer but the future of the Mercantile Marine is necessarily a matter which the Government will keep constantly before them.

NEW TONNAGE.

Sir I. Albery: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he can now make any statement concerning the amount of new shipping being built in this country?

Mr. Maxton: asked the Minister of Shipping how much tonnage of shipping has been purchased abroad during the last three months; and how much has been completed in shipyards within the United Kingdom?

Sir A. Salter: As stated in reply to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) on i4th November, my right hon. Friend would prefer, at any rate for the present, not to give figures regarding the additions to our merchant tonnage by building; and I hope I shall not be pressed to give figures of tonnage added by purchase or transfer from abroad or other methods.

LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Minister of Shipping whether rafts as lifesaving appliances are generally carried in addition to lifeboats in merchant ships; and if not, whether he will consider making such provision compulsory?

Sir A. Salter: The carriage of rafts sufficient for all on board has been recommended by the Ministry, who have, with the support of the shipowners' organisations, issued a notice on the subject which includes instructions as to the construction of a simple type of emergency raft. Active steps are being taken by shipowners to provide rafts, but my right hon. Friend would have no hesitation in applying compulsion if circumstances required it.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: As I understood from the answer that this is not being made compulsory, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the urgency of these rafts being provided, and is he further aware that if the order were made compulsory, it would apply only to those who would not normally supply them?

Sir A. Salter: Yes, Sir, but we are and have been making inquiries as to the extent to which our recommendations have been and are being followed; and are informed although there are certain difficulties in some cases in getting the supplies at once, active steps are being taken by owners; but my right hon. Friend will have no hesitation whatever, if we find that these rafts are not being provided as quickly as possible, in using compulsion.

CLOSED SHIPYARDS.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Shipping (1) whether full use is being made of all available shipyards in Scotland;
(2) whether he proposes to revive shipbuilding in all the yards which were closed some time ago in consequence of the rationalisation of the industry?

Sir A. Salter: As indicated in reply to previous Questions regarding closed shipyards, the question how far the re-opening of these shipyards will increase the national output of tonnage is under constant review, and if my right hon. Friend is satisfied that such re-opening will achieve this object, arrangements will certainly be made to this end. My right

hon. Friend's policy will be to utilise all those yards which, having regard to the best use of the material and labour available, can be made to add to the total output of merchant tonnage.

Sir T. Moore: Will my hon. Friend say that, if private enterprise is not available, the Government will be prepared to re-open these alleged redundant yards which were closed down by rationalisation?

Sir A. Salter: My hon. and gallant Friend may be assured that, whenever the use of these yards will enable us to add to which is being produced in the present yards, those yards will be utilised.

Mr. Kirkwood: Arising from the original Reply, in which it was stated that the Minister has these shipyards under review, when will the Ministry be in a position to give a report on how soon they will be starting up some of those yards which they declare to be derelict—which is absolutely untrue, for they are not derelict?

Sir A. Salter: Our first effort is to get the utmost production out of the yards already in operation and to use them to their maximum capacity. The question of the actual opening up of yards not now fit for immediate production is bound up with the question of the labour and materials available for use in the existing yards. So far as they can be used to increase the total output, the yards not now used will be drawn upon.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that there are shipyards not only on the Clyde but all over Britain which at the moment could be utilised for producing ships even while you are seeing that these other yards are fully employed and fully equipped?

Sir A. Salter: I am not aware that such yards can immediately be used without drawing on labour and materials which can perhaps be more effectively used in yards now open. That is the difficulty.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: When the hon. Gentleman refers to labour and materials now available, is he not taking steps to increase the resources of labour and materials?

Sir A. Salter: Yes, Sir, active steps are being taken to that end.

Sir T. Moore: Will dilution of labour be allowed by the trade unions?

CIVIL SERVICE (EXAMINATIONS).

Mr. White: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is in a position to make any further statement with regard to the future of the Civil Service examinations?

Captain Crookshank: The matter has been further examined but I regret that it is neither practicable nor advisable to resume competitive examinations for entry into the Civil Service in present conditions.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES OFFICIAL REPORT.

Commander King-Hall: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that within a few days of its issue OFFICIAL REPORT NO. 6, Volume 355, of the 7th December, 1939, was out of print, and that members of the public were being informed at His Majesty's Stationery Offices that they could not purchase copies of this issue; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the re-occurrence of such an event?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir. I do not consider, however, that any special steps need be taken to prevent the recurrence of so unusual an event as that referred to.

Commander King-Hall: May I ask who is responsible for deciding whether an edition of the OFFICIAL REPORT is to be reprinted when the public demand has exhausted the first edition?

Captain Crookshank: I should like to have notice of that question. Perhaps I ought to have informed the House that the Debate on that day was an exceedingly interesting one on trade matters, and no doubt it attracted a larger number of customers than usual, and, in addition, that a publication not unknown to the hon. and gallant Member advised all its readers to buy that issue. If we had received notice of this advice perhaps we could have got an extra supply.

Mr. Mander: Has it not always been the custom in the past, when there has been an additional demand for copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT, to reprint the issue immediately? Why was not that done in this case?

Captain Crookshank: The extra demand was for only 62 copies and we must have some regard in these days to expense.

Commander King-Hall: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT No. 6, Volume 355, of the 7th December, 1939, were sold to the public?

Captain Crookshank: 1,296.

ELECTRIC TORCHES AND BATTERIES.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, in view of the continued shortage of batteries for electric torches and the urgent need of pedestrians, he will take steps to secure an adequate supply of such batteries; and whether it is possible to arrange for the production of a standard type of pedestrians' torch and battery which can be supplied in large numbers at a reasonable price?

Major Lloyd George: With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) last Thursday. With regard to the second part, I am informed that the production of torches and batteries in this country is, at present, concentrated on a few standard sizes and that plant for the manufacture of batteries for small torches has been increased since the outbreak of war. Batteries and torches of all sizes have been included in the first Order made under the Prices of Goods Act, and it is now open to members of the public to ask their Local Price Regulation Committee to investigate any increases of price which appear to them to be unreasonable.

Mr. Harvey: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is still a very grave shortage in some districts, and that this causes added danger to life?

Major Lloyd George: I am fully aware that in certain districts there is a serious


shortage. This shortage is due partly to the movement of population which has brought a much greater number of people to some districts. A second reason for the shortage is that the demand is wholly without precedent in this country. In the first six weeks of the war, more batteries were bought than during the whole of the last war. The supply is now very much better than it was and the output is much greater than it was, and new plant is being erected. I feel certain that before very long we shall be in a very much better position to meet the unprecedented demand.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there was no black-out during the last war?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

National Loans Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (FINANCIAL CLAIMS AND REFUGEES) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

4 7 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
There is a very long Preamble to this Bill, but it is not by any stretch of the imagination what one would call pellucid. The story dates back to two Acts which this House has already passed, and the story that I want to put before the House begins with the Act of last year entitled the Czecho-Slovakia (Financial Assistance) Act. Hon. Members will recollect that that Bill ratified two agreements which had been concluded between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Czecho-Slovakia, to one of which the French Government was a party. As was announced in the House at the time, it was proposed that there should be a free gift from this country to Czecho-Slovakia of £4,000,00o which was to assist them, after the time of Munich, in dealing with their very difficult problem of refugees. There was a second sum involved, which was a loan of £6,000,000, which it was intended to use for various works of internal reconstruction in that country, and so the position was that when we passed the first Act of last year we had already given a free gift of £4,000,000 to the Czecho-Slovak Government and we had lent them £6,000,000 for the purposes of internal reconstruction. Those two separate sums were placed to the credit of the National Bank of Czecho-Slovakia at the Bank of England and were drawn upon from time to time up to 15th March last year, that date being, of course, the date when Czecho-Slovakia was overrun. If hon. Members want to know what the state of those accounts is at the moment, the loan account of £6,000,000 now stands at just over £3,500,000 and the gift account of £4,000,000 stands at just over £3,000,000.
But there is a further complication, in that the Czecho-Slovak Government decided to earmark part of this gift of L4,000,000, namely, £500,000 to assist the emigration of refugees to Palestine,

and started for that purpose another account, the Lloyds Bank Gift Account; that will explain why there are references in the first Clause, Sub-section (1), to the Bank of England Gift Account and in Sub-section (2) to the Lloyds Bank Gift Account. The sum originally paid in was £500,000, and the sum now standing under that account is just over £400,000. That is the first part of the story—the loan of £6,000,000, the gift of L4,000,000, and the gift itself sub-divided by putting £500,000 to a special account.
Then came the overrunning of Czecho-Slovakia, and with the consent of the House the Government took immediate action then to secure that the German authorities should not be able to obtain all the Czecho-Slovak assets in this country, while failing to make provision for the transfer of financial debts to British creditors. The Act which was passed by this House in March last year, the Czecho-Slovakia (Restrictions on Banking Accounts, Etc.) Act, therefore, blocked all the Czecho-Slovak bank balances, gold and securities, at the time of the invasion. That, of course, included these amounts to which I have referred, the loan account, the gift account, and the Lloyds Bank account, and so the result was that the National Bank of Czecho-Slovakia could not operate those accounts for the purposes for which they were intended by this House, nor could anybody else; in effect there was a legislative standstill in regard to the operation of the refugee funds. But at the time, during the Debates on that Bill, my right hon. Friend said that by one means or another it was the intention of the Government that the amount of these gift accounts should be made available for their original purpose, which was the assistance of the refugees. In order to make that possible and in anticipation of legislation of the kind which I am now attempting to describe to the House, this House voted in July last a sum of £2,500,000 which could be issued as necessary to the trustees of the CzechoSlovak Refugee Fund, so that they could be put in funds for the purpose which we all had a very sincere wish to see carried out.
That is the background of the story. The Bill, therefore, comes along to regularise the position. Clauses 1 and 3 finish the story so far as the refugee account is concerned. What is to happen is that the sums that now stand to the credit of


these two gift accounts—what is left of the original £4,000,000—will be paid to the Treasury, and the Treasury will pay into the Exchequer a sum equal to the amount which has been advanced to the trustees under the Votes last July, thus repaying that advance. When that has been done the balance will be paid into the fund known as the Czecho-Slovak Refugee Fund, as described in Clause 3 of the Bill. That fund will be, as Clause 3 says, under the control of the Treasury, and they will pay out to the trustees such sums as may be shown to be necessary from time to time for the purposes of carrying out the trust. I hope that that is clear so far as the refugees are concerned. I should say, because it is now not quite accurate, that on the Financial Memorandum to the Bill the last sentence but one points out that up to the 15th July £500,000 had been so advanced, that is advanced out of the £2,500,000 estimate which we voted in July. In point of fact that was accurate at that date, but a further £100,000 has since been issued and, therefore, what will be eventually available to the trustees for this purpose is a sum which I cannot exactly give to the House; but I can give the factors which will in due course lead to its exact estimation. It will be this, the balance now standing in the two gift accounts, less £600,000 which has been advanced out of the £2,500,000, plus any additional interest which may have been earned on that money since the middle of January, and less any further advances the Home Office may have made over the £600,000 before this Bill becomes law.

Mr. MacLaren: In round figures what is that?

Captain Crookshank: I suppose at present somewhere about £2,500,000. I do not know whether they will not want a further advance before the Bill is passed. So much for the gift account to refugees. The other account is the loan account referred to in Clauses r and 2. It was always the intention that the assets which were blocked under the Czecho-Slovakia (Restriction of Banking Accounts, etc.) Act, that is the second Act last year, should be used in such a way to give protection to British creditors with financial claims on Czecho-Slovakia. The assets in this country broadly speaking are

divided into four classes. There is first of all this loan account, secondly the gift accounts, thirdly the assets of persons who have left Czecho-Slovakia, and fourthly, the assets of persons, including the Bank of Czecho-Slovakia, who are still in that country. Now, if we look to the source of money for the purposes which I have mentioned, obviously the gift account cannot be considered, and obviously the balances of persons who have left CzechoSlovakia, and, therefore, are themselves at present in the position of a refugee cannot be looked to. We have already under the powers of the Act made certain releases to such persons of their own assets in this country and I think everybody would agree that that is right. It would not either be suitable to look to the assets of the persons who are still in CzechoSlovakia, because these balances can hardly be used in time of war and must remain blocked until the end of the war. So the only source from which assistance can be given for the purpose of dealing with these financial claims—

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

National Loans Act, 1940.

CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (FINANCIAL CLAIMS AND REFUGEES) BILL.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Captain Crookshank: That interruption will make the course of my explanation a little more confused than it otherwise would have been, but fortunately I had reached the end of what I had to say about the gift account. I now pass to the loan account. It would be improper to look to the gift fund, or to the assets of Czecho-Slovak refugees who are here as the result of their country being overrun, or to the balances of Czecho-Slovak subjects who are still in that country for any assistance towards dealing with the financial claims; the only source to which it is proper to go is, therefore, the balance of this loan account. It was a loan to the Czecho-Slovak Government and the


money was advanced by His Majesty's Government for the reconstruction of that country. That object of the loan cannot in present circumstances be fulfilled, and I think it is clear that the best use to which it could be put is towards fulfilling the obligations of the Czecho-Slovak Government. That is what it is intended to do. The rights of the creditors against the original debtors will be transferred to the Treasury here. The documents of title can be handed over, should it be desirable and necessary and possible, for use as a set off against the debt of the Czecho-Slovak Government to the Treasury.
The balance in the account at the moment is about £3,500,000. The proposal in the Bill is that that sum should be paid into the Treasury and then paid by the Treasury into a fund to be set up under Clause 2 (1), to be called the Czecho-Slovak Financial Claims Fund, which will be under Treasury control. All that the Bill says with regard to the disposal of that fund is that it is to be used to satisfy obligations incurred before the 15th March of last year by the Government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic, or persons who on that date were resident or carrying on business in the Republic or incorporated under the law thereof. All that the Bill says is that this shall be done as a result of a Treasury Order which will specify which obligations shall be satisfied in this way and the extent and manner in which they are to be satisfied, and that that Order will not be effective until each House of Parliament has approved the draft of it. Clause 4 of the Bill deals with the accounts of these two funds. That is all there is in the Bill and for the convenience of hon. Members we circulated with the Bill the scheme which, if the Bill is passed, is the sort of scheme we propose to embody in the Treasury Order. It is to he found in Command Paper 6154. I do not know how far I shall be allowed to refer to this document. It is not debatable on this occasion because it is only a scheme which we have in mind.

Mr. Boothby: As far as I can make oat, this is the only occasion on which we shall be able to examine this scheme in some detail. When it is introduced as a Treasury Order it will have to be either accepted or rejected in toto. If that be the case, may I ask for a Ruling whether we can have some discussion

of the scheme on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I put it to you, Sir, that in this White Paper we have admittedly the intentions of the Government, and these intentions are what are to be covered by the Bill which is now before us. Therefore, although I do not suggest we should roam over great detail, there would be nothing out of order in discussing the major provisions of the proposed scheme in the White Paper on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: It will be entirely in order, without going into specific details of the scheme, to discuss it in connection with the Bill.

Major Procter: Would it be in order to make quotations from the White Paper for the purpose of criticism?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot rule on that until I hear the quotations which the hon. and gallant Member proposes to make.

Captain Crookshank: I am sure the House is relieved by your Ruling, Sir, because it enables us to look into this matter at this stage. It may make it unnecessary to have Debates subsequently on the same subject and we may be able to conclude the affair on this occasion. The claims we propose to admit under this scheme are those in respect of the payment of interest due on bonds or debentures of the Czecho-Slovak State Loan of 1922, the City of Greater Prague 7½ per cent. Mortgage Loan of 1922 and the Skoda Works 6 per cent. 1st Mortgage Debentures; also the Czecho-Slovak guarantee in respect of interest on the Austrian Government Conversion Loan of 1934, which, of course, was a CzechoSlovak Government Guarantee; and further, cash claims against the CzechoSlovak Government in respect of Treasury Bills and bonds and against banks in Czecho-Slovakia, including claims in respect of bank balances. That does not cover every conceivable claim which may lay against Czecho-Slovak subjects. There are good reasons for that.

Sir Irving Albery: With regard to the Austrian Loan Guarantee, does that only cover bonds held by English holders?

Captain Crookshank: I do not want to be led away into details, but I can assure


my hon. Friend that, as a matter of fact, this is one case in which payment is not limited to British holders. My hon. Friend knows better than I do the full details of the Austrian guaranteed loan of 1934, under which in case of default each guarantor Government is due to pay its appointed share of the service moneys of each issue of the loan. In point of fact this case would not necessarily be limited to British holders.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: On page 3 of the White Paper are the words "shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury.…" To what section does that apply? Does it apply to the whole of the scheme including paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), or does it apply only to (c)? I should like to know in view of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said.

Captain Crookshank: That phrase applies only to (c). The right hon. Gentleman will observe that similar words appear in paragraph (a). They do not appear in paragraph (b). I was about to say that, of course, this does not cover every conceivable claim that there may be. It deals only with financial claims, and one of the reasons for that is that the amount of money concerned is limited. As will be seen from (c) of paragraph 2 in the scheme, it will not be possible to pay out in full. No payment in respect of any claim shall exceed £1,000 together with one-half of the amount by which the claim exceeds 1,000, provided that no claimant shall receive in respect of one claim more than £50,000. That is because to start with the money is limited; there is only £3,500,000 in this fund.
The other reason why the classes of claims have been restricted is that these loans and bonds and cash claims are, practically speaking, the only kind of claims whose existence can be verified and the solvency of the debtor assumed in the absence of any communication with Czecho-Slovakia. It is not to be forgotten that so long as the Treasury are paying out of this fund the moneys to the claimants it is necessary in the public interest that they should be limited to claims in respect of which the Treasury can secure proper documentary evidence. The payment of the interest on these bonds will be made in respect of bonds shown to be in possession of British residents on 8th

May, 1939. That date is chosen because since then dealings in Czecho-Slovakian securities have only taken place when accompanied by a certificate that they were in the beneficial ownership of British holders. Payment will be made in respect of cash claims in cases where the obligations have been registered with the Bank of England and shown to have been owned since 14th March, 1939, by a person who was resident in the United Kingdom since the outbreak of the war. The effect of that is that refugees who have come to settle in this country in the period between the invasion of Czecho-Slovakia and the outbreak of the war will be able to claim under the scheme if they have claims which fall under its provisions.
The only other thing I have to say is with regard to the last date on which claims can be registered with the Bank of England. Claims have been registered for some time past, but it may be that some have not yet been registered, and the latest date for registration is the 31st January this year. I hope that anyone interested in this matter will take note of that fact. I think that in introducing this Bill I have said all that is necessary and hope that I have made the situation clear, and I shall be glad to try to answer any questions which may be put to me, or my right hon. Friend will when he is able to return to the Chamber, before we conclude the Debate; but, as the House knows, of course this is not the only occasion on which hon. Members can raise points which they wish to bring forward.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I think that in one of Lewis Carroll's books relating to the "Adventures of Alice," he said that things became "curiouser and curiouser." This Bill, I think, becomes "complicateder and complicateder," and though I certainly commend the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as being as lucid as the subject will permit, I cannot pretend that I have mastered all the details of this scheme, and I very much doubt whether there is anyone outside the Treasury who could put his hand on his heart and say that he understood it all. But I think the main outlines are, after all, fairly straightforward. There are certain funds relating to Czecho-Slovakia which the Government has control over at the present time. There are funds which


in some shape or form the Government subscribed itself—that is, from the money of the taxpayers—and there are in addition the funds which the Government blocked. As I understand the Bill and the Treasury scheme and the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, these other funds, those which were not subscribed in the first instance by this Government, but which the Government blocked at the time when the blocking process was carried through, which was at the beginning of April or the end of March last year, are not touched by this Bill, and I should like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, or whoever is going to reply, to give us some little information on that point. Are there additional funds which are blocked by the Government? If, as I think, there are, what do they amount to, and what are the intentions of the Government regarding them? I can see certain reasons why they should not be brought into this scheme. It may be there are other purposes for which the Government think they ought to be used, but I think we are entitled to know what is in the Government's mind on that point. I imagine there is no one in this House who would like to see them handed over to Germany either now or at the end of the war. I imagine that, if they are to be kept till the end of the war, they must be kept solely and exclusively for a reconstituted Czecho-Slovakia, independent of any outside control, and I should like someone on behalf of the Government to give an assurance that that is their intention.
That is the first point. My second point is that, as I understand it, there are three or four different sets of persons who stand to get some benefit under this scheme. First of all, in a category by themselves, are the persons who are entitled to get something under the Austrian Guaranteed Conversion Loan who may not either be British subjects or British residents, and I do not say anything more with regard to them. In the second place there are British subjects who will obtain certain sums as a result of the financial claims which are covered by this White Paper. In the third place there are Czech or Slovak persons who are resident in this country who may also hope to get benefit under this claims fund, provided they satisfy the conditions and to the extent referred to in the White Paper. In the fourth place there

are Czecho-Slovaks who, whether they are resident in this country or not, may get relief under the other fund which is dealt with in Clause 3 of the Bill. It is conceivably possible, though not very likely, that a Czech subject resident in this country might have a case at one and the same time under both these heads.
So much for the general outline of the proposals. Now I come to one or two points which are more in the nature of details. This Bill and this scheme, as I understand, do provide for payment to a certain extent both on account of cash debts and of interest on certain specified liabilities and the payment in certain cases is to be in certain proportions dependent upon the total of the claim, the smaller claims being met in full, the medium claims being met to the extent of half, and the larger claims not being met beyond a certain amount. I should like to say that I agree in the main with certain features of the Bill. I agree with the definition of a British holder which appears on page 3 of the White Paper. That does extend to Czecho-Slovakian subjects who are resident here the advantage of being repaid these sums if they are in a position which entitles them to secure them. It is not confined to strictly British subjects. I agree, further, with the principle on which the part payments are decided. I think it is reasonable, at any rate in the case of a first instalment, that some selection should be made among holders, and the smaller people paid in full, and that if there has to be a limit beyond which repayment is not made, it should be the larger holders who, for the time being at any rate, have to forego part of the repayment. As I understand it—I may be wrong—if there is enough money there may be a further distribution among the larger holders.
I should like to ask one or two other questions regarding the disposal of such money as does not originate from this country. I should like to know exactly why it is that some of the categories which were referred to in a circular from the Bank of England dated 3rd April, 1939, have apparently been excluded from the scheme. In that circular there were four categories of persons who were entitled to send in claims. There were claims concerning (a) loans issued by the Czecho-Slovak Government or by any


public authority or by any corporation; (b) shares or participations in any corporation incorporated before the 15th March, 1939, under Czecho-Slovak law; (c) balances with banks in CzechoSlovakia; and (d) miscellaneous financial obligations such as interest-bearing or revenue-producing claims of persons or institutions in Czecho-Slovakia, but excluding trade obligations. As I understand the new proposals, only claims under (a) and (c) are covered by this scheme. Claims under (b) and (d) are omitted.
Before I pass to the explanation which I understand is the one which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is likely to give I should like to make one or two comments on the classes of persons excluded in this way. There are all the people who have claims other than those upon banks. For instance, there were in Czecho-Slovakia before the German occupation a very large number of co-operative societies. A great number of Czecho-Slovaks had accounts in those co-operative societies, and under the provisional draft claims put forward in the Bank of England circular of 31d April, 1939, all those people would have had an opportunity of submitting their claims and might have expected to have them met when the scheme was finally drafted. Those people, as I understand it, will now get nothing at all. There are a large number of other people who had certain shares or interests in various other forms of Czecho-Slovak undertakings, and they will all be excluded. Whatever may be the reasons, it seems to me very unfortunate that many of those people, who at the present time are in this country, will under this scheme hold out their hand and find that not bread but a stone is put into it.
Before I came to the House this afternoon I was at a loss to know why it was that these people were excluded, but some words which fell from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest to me what his answer may very likely be. Subsequent to 3rd April, 1939, war has broken out, and therefore we are unable to get into direct touch with the authorities in Czecho-Slovakia, and it may be that the difficulty of substantiating claims may appear to him and to the Treasury to justify the exclusion of this very important group of claims. But is that really

the case? I should have thought that a great many of those claims could be substantiated. The claimants must almost certainly have documentary evidence of a fairly conclusive character, and though it must naturally rest upon a claimant to substantiate his claim, if he is able to do so I do not see why he should be ruled out by an a priori classification.
The whole of this scheme is. of course, very complicated, and I may he wrong in thinking that these people are excluded. What I want to know specifically from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman when he replies is: Are these claims, which are classified as claims under (b) and (d) of the original circular of the Bank of England, excluded, and, if they are, cannot the Government promise to reconsider the matter and to see whether an attempt can be made to meet claims which can be clearly and beyond a peradventure substantiated by the claimants?
Those are the main points which I wanted to make with regard to the Bill. There are, however, subsidiary points which I wish to put, before I conclude my speech. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has answered one of the questions which I had to ask, as to the total assets of the Fund that the Government were proposing to administer. The Government have not given us very much idea of the total amount of the claims. No doubt the claims are not complete, because the Government are giving the claimants up till the end of January to send in their applications. I have a shrewd idea of what the claims are, but I hope that the Government be able to give us some idea of them, if not now, then at a later stage. When we know what the assets are, what the claims are and what proportion of the claims will be met under this scheme, claimants will be in a better position to know what chance there is of there being a further division of assets among them.
Finally, I would like to ask a question as to procedure. As I understand the position, a little after the passage of the Bill the scheme will have to come at some subsequent date before the House for an affirmative Resolution to be passed. When the Government bring forward an affirmative Resolution of that kind it is very difficult for any Amendment to take place, and that is why I think it is of the utmost importance that we should


have what you, Mr. Speaker, have been kind enough to indicate, the right to-day to discuss the main principles of the White Paper. If the House wishes for any Amendment of this White Paper it is open to express its wishes. No doubt, between the present time and when the actual Treasury draft order is brought forward, the Government will be good enough to give our suggestions their consideration.
Before I sit down I would like to repeat one important point which I have already made. Assuming that I am right in thinking that a considerable number of very worthy people, with small amounts clearly and definitely documented, are excluded by the scheme as it stands, I would ask the Government to undertake to reconsider that matter and to see whether they can so amend the scheme that some or all of those people are brought within its ambit.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: The House has listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. If I may venture to say so, I do not think it would be practical for the Government to meet the commercial claims of CzechoSlovakians because the difficulty of substantiating such claims would be almost insuperable. Further, we do not really possess corresponding assets in this country to cover such claims. We have cash assets, and it seems to me that the only claims which can be legitimately set off against those assets are cash claims. therefore, agree entirely in this respect with the Government's policy; we are paying cash claims out of cash assets held. I do not entirely agree with the method, but the principle is one from which it would have been very difficult to escape at any time. We do not hold mortgages, or shares, or commercial debts in this country, corresponding to similar debts in what was Czecho-Slovakia.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: At any rate the impression of the Bank of England at the time the circular was issued was that it definitely contemplated doing so. It would not have put forward ideas which it thought it would be impossible to carry out—unless circumstances have changed as I believe they have, to some extent. At that time the Bank did contemplate it.

Mr. Boothby: The war has made a decisive difference, because we cannot

now get into touch with what was Czecho-Slovakia. The Bank of England probably had two reasons for the action they took. The first was that they wanted information generally as to what sort of debts were owed by Czecho-Slovakia to this country. It would be natural for them to want as much information on that point as possible. Secondly, at that time it was possible that we might do a deal on behalf of these claimants with the German Government. That was before the war broke out. Once the war broke out, the situation entirely changed. I sympathise with the Government to this extent, that I do not see how they could meet claims other than cash claims, because these are the only claims against which we hold precisely corresponding assets, and which can be precisely ascertained in the present circumstances. When my right hon. and gallant Friend said that he did not think that bank balances in Czecho-Slovakia ought to be touched at the present time, I confess I could not quite follow him. They seem to me to come very much into the category of assets which can be touched.
All I want to say at the moment is that the House is glad that the Treasury have produced a draft scheme for our consideration—after a very long wait. My right hon. and gallant Friend rightly pointed out that the Bill as such is merely an enabling Bill. The scheme is the thing. I am sure that the House will be very grateful to the Treasury and to the Government for having produced, in the form of a White Paper, a draft of the scheme which it is proposed to introduce. The House will thus have the opportunity to make some observations. My right hon. Friend opposite has indeed already made some very important and interesting observations. If the House has any say in the matter—and I think it ought to have some say—I would ask my right hon. and gallant Friend not to reply in detail to-day to any points of criticism that we may put; but I would ask for an assurance that the Treasury will consider all the views expressed in this Debate before the final Treasury Order is submitted to us; because the order cannot be amended in detail, and probably, when the moment comes, it will be passed without further discussion.
The most interesting thing about the proposals of the Government is that the


Czech assets, about which we have heard so much, remain blocked. It is only the unexpended balance of the British Government loan to Czecho-Slovakia which is to be used to satisfy certain claims. The assets remain in our hands; and they may, according to the figure given to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, amount to £17,000,000. They were £16,000,000; but, owing to the rise in the price of gold, they rose to £17,000,000. I agree that the Government might give us a little more information about their intentions with regard to this very substantial sum of money. Is it to remain blocked in this country? What do the Government intend to do? Will they keep this money frozen, or put it to some use? Is the money to remain idle? Of the £21,000,000-odd held in London on 14th March last, on behalf of the late Czecho-Slovakian State, over £5,000,000 in gold has been handed to Germany by the Bank for International Settlements. Is the remainder to be kept completely immobilised, in a kind of cold storage, for an indefinite period, when it might be put to productive use in this country? That is a point which worries me not a little.
Turning to the actual scheme in the White Paper we have, I think, too little information from the Government at present to enable us to judge of its merits—to know whether it is a fair or an unfair scheme. We have not the faintest idea what the cash claims amount to, and the Treasury have not given us any estimate. We know that there is £3,500,000 with which to meet the claims but we do not know what the claims amount to. They may well amount to less than that sum, and if that is the case the scheme seems to be very fair indeed. If the claims cannot be met out of the £3,500,000, what proportion of them is to be met, and on what basis? That question, in its turn, depends to a very large extent upon the length of time that the Government propose to pay the interest on these bonds, and on the rate of interest which they propose to pay. It is fantastic to suppose that on bonds of this kind the British Government are to go on paying, for an indefinite period, rates of 6 per cent., 7½ per cent. or 8 per cent., when they are paying only 2 per cent on their own bonds. We have the

right to know something of the intentions of the Government in this matter. Do the Government propose to fund these bonds; and, if so, on what basis? If not, for how long do they propose to pay interest? And at what rate?
Another point which I wish to put is in regard to the Austrian loan. I do not know why it should be included in this scheme. The Czechs were not responsible for the seizure of Austria. They did not want it, and they would not have approved of it if they had been asked. I do not know why they should be expected to service this loan. [An HON. MEMBER: "They guaranteed it.") Yes, but other people also guaranteed it. It seems to me that we are taking the Austrian loan as it were from outside and putting it into a scheme dealing with purely Czech assets, without much logic, reason or purpose. I agree that the old Government of Czecho-Slovakia guaranteed it, but other Governments also guaranteed it. The Austrian loan may well be susceptible to an international solution eventually, in which, no doubt, the old Government of Czecho-Slovakia and the new Government will play their part. But I do not see why these assets should be subjected to these provisions. I believe the amount involved is very small, but I should like to know, at some stage, the reasons which have led the Government to take this step.
On page 3 of the scheme, in paragraph 1 (c) there occur the words:
shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury to be beneficially owned by a British holder and to have been so owned by him at all times since the 14th March, 1939.
Here is a point of considerable importance which I would like to put to my right hon. Friend; I do not know if he can answer it to-day, but it is a point which deserves careful consideration. Does that mean that if a claim has been assigned, for instance to a bank as security for a loan, the claimant loses his rights? I am sure that in some cases, where some of these smaller holders of assets have been hard pressed, they have assigned their claims as security for loans; and I am equally sure that the Government would not wish that because they have done this they should forfeit their rights under the scheme. I feel that if these words are open to that interpretation, my right hon. and gallant Friend would take steps to put it right.
Then there is the important point of what constitutes a British holder. I am going to submit that all cash claims should be met. We have plenty of money to do it. In the meantime under paragraph 2 (c) on page 4 of the Scheme, tile Treasury are seeking in some respects rather arbitrary powers. They are practically seeking the right to pay just as much to individual claimants as they think fit. Of course, in these days the Treasury must be granted enormous powers, but I want to know whether a British company which has been carrying on business in Czecho-Slovakia for years and has done a lot of business in that country will rank absolutely pari passu with a refugee Czech, who only arrived in this country on the 1st September last, when it comes to making payments in respect of their cash claims. If there is to be a system of "proportional payments" beyond a basic figure of £1,000—which I agree is right, because all claims of less than £1,000 should be met in full—then surely purely British concerns or individuals who have lived and worked in this country for 20 or 30 years. should take precedence over refugees who have come over since last summer, and who have not even begun to pay any taxes in this country. Some differentiation should surely be made between these two different classes of claimants. Then there is a phrase in paragraph 1 (c) on page 3:
…who was resident in the United Kingdom or … carrying on business in the United Kingdom … and is so resident or carrying on business on the date on which the relative claim is made by him.
What is the relative claim? I agree the claims of those who have left this country since 3rd September, or who now desire to leave this country, should not be met; but I imagine—and this is a point to which I desire particularly to draw the attention of my right hon. and gallant Friend—that this would not apply to resident Czechs in this country who are now on war service in France in one form or another. I presume they will not be considered as having left this country for the purposes of the scheme, but that they will be regarded as being resident in this country.
There is one other point with regard to Czech holders which I would like to put to my right hon. and gallant Friend; I think it is a point of some importance.

Certain Czechs came over to this country shortly before the outbreak of war and declared that they were not residents in this country, but were simply living here for a short period for the purpose of going to the United States of America. They therefore did not surrender their dollar holdings. In quite a number of cases I think these Czechs, who came over here and who are comparatively wealthy, have been unable to obtain visas hitherto for the United States. Surely these gentlemen ought not to be entitled to payment as British holders in respect of cash claims, and thus receive not only their sterling claims, but also be allowed to retain their dollar holdings? If they have opted to go to the United States of America as a permanency, and make that their place of residence in the future; and if they have refused to surrender their dollar holdings on that account, then merely because they have been unable to get to the United States on account of transport or visa difficulties, and therefore under this scheme may qualify as British holders, they should not be compensated in full for their claims in sterling, and also be allowed to retain their dollar holdings, subsequently leaving for the United States having got the advantages of both situations. I think that is a point of substance to which my right hon. and gallant Friend should direct his attention. There is another phrase in paragraph I (c) of the scheme:
The expression 'registered obligation' means an obligation in respect of which a claim has prior to the 31st January, 1940, been registered with the Bank of England in accordance with the notice published by it on the 3rd April, 1939.
I presume this means that anyone may still make a claim up to the 31st of this month. I would point out that a good many opportunities have already been given to holders of claims to lodge them. They were told to push them in by April last, and then they had a further extension, and here they are getting a third. I venture to hope there will not be any further extension beyond this, because a very large number of these holders are now much less interested in lodging their claims than they are in getting some kind of payment. The claims have been lodged over and over again, and the date has been postponed on at least two occasions. The question in which they are interested is when they are going to see the money


which is due to them. Therefore, I would like some assurance that this further extension of the time in which claims can be registered, in view of the fact that it has been twice extended, does not mean there will be further delay on the part of the Treasury in getting down to business.
There is one Section of the scheme of which I wholeheartedly approve, and that is Section 3 on page 4. It says:
… in relation to beneficial ownership owing to such beneficial ownership being vested in several persons, the Treasury may allow such payment to be made as they consider equitable having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
These claims should be made by, and paid to, British holders; and if a British claimant is also claiming on behalf of other claimants, whether in CzechoSlovakia or in other parts of the world, it seems equitable that the Treasury should take into account the proportion of the claim which belongs to him personally, and then pay that amount only. It would certainly not be right for one holder living in this country, and putting in a claim on behalf of other holders either in Czecho-Slovakia or elsewhere as well, to be paid in full.
Finally, so far as paragraph 5 is concerned, while "arrogant" may be too strong a word, the Treasury is certainly asking for very drastic powers--in my view, too drastic. Listen to this:
The Treasury will retain full power to decide all questions arising in regard to the scheme and any decisions given by or on behalf of the Treasury shall be final.
They say also that they may refuse any payment if they think it can be obtained from another source. And lastly:
the Treasury may also, so far as the total funds available may permit, provide for further payments.
Here I think the poor faithful patient House of Commons is certainly entitled to ask the Treasury whether they think any further payments will be made, and on what sort of scale, and when. And here I come back to what I said at the beginning. At the moment we have been vouchsafed too little information about the intentions of the Treasury and the amount of the cash claims to form an honest opinion as to whether the scheme is intrinsically fair or unfair, good or bad.
Strong arguments can be adduced in favour of meeting all the cash claims in full at once. There are sufficient funds blocked in the City of London available for this purpose. The validity of the cash claims was admitted before the war, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, even by the German Government. We cannot tell what the future holds in store, but we can be quite sure that one day a liberated Bohemia will take her place in what I hope will be a federation of free States in Central Europe. We can, however, be equally sure that Central Europe will never return to the political and economic Bedlam which was created in 1919. When we talk of restoring Czecho-Slovakia in precisely the same economic and political form in which she was before, I hope and believe that will never come about.
When the time comes—alas, it is not yet in sight—the necessary financial assistance will also have to be found by this country and other countries, perhaps also by a country across the Atlantic Ocean, for the nations that will form the new Europe—the Europe which ought to have been created in 'gig, and which, alas, was not. Meanwhile, in order to free these countries, including Bohemia, from the Nazi yoke, we want all the money we can get in this country, and we want to put it to the best possible productive use here at home, and now.
The question I want to put to my right hon. and gallant Friend this afternoon is whether he thinks it right to keep a large sum—perhaps £14,000,000 or £15,000,000 —lying idle, when it could be used for productive purposes in this country? The Government have recognised the right, and indeed the necessity of meeting cash claims out of the assets now blocked in this country. If it is right, then I submit, with all due respect to my right hon. and gallant Friend that there is a very strong case to be made out in favour of paying these cash claims, so far as they can be substantiated by documentary evidence, and for paying them in full and without further delay. This is a matter upon which, I submit, the House of Commons has an undoubted right to express an opinion; and all I would suggest to my right hon. and gallant Friend this afternoon is that, before submitting this scheme in the final form of a Treasury Order which we cannot amend, he should carefully consider the arguments which


may be submitted to him from both sides of the House this afternoon, that he should give full weight to them, and that he should bear them in mind when drafting the final scheme which will be submitted to us.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Mander: As has been said this afternoon, this is a highly complicated and technical matter arising out of the unhappy history of the last 18 months. A number of points touching one side only of the problem have already been dealt with, and there are one or two other aspects of it which have not yet been referred to and which I would like to mention.
First of all, I desire to raise the point whether there has been any consultation in connection with this matter with the recently recognised Czecho-Slovakia Committee in this country. It will be remembered that there is a Czecho-Slovak Committee, which was recognised by the French Government on 17th November last, and more recently by the British Government, consisting of eight distinguished Czech subjects—Dr. Benes, General S. Ingr, M. S. Osusky, M. E. Outrata, M. H. Ripka, M. J. Slavik, Mgr. J. Shramek and General R. Viest—and that, in reply to a letter from Dr. Benes about this committee, Lord Halifax informed Dr. Benes that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom took note of the communication and recognised that the committee were qualified to represent the Czecho-Slovak people, particularly with regard to certain military arrangements, but not necessarily with regard to them only. It would seem to me quite proper that a measure of this kind should be discussed with such a committee. Perhaps the Minister who is going to reply would be good enough to say whether—

Captain Crookshank: In order to save further application to that point, perhaps it would be as well for me to say that the Czecho-Slovak Chargé d' Affaires has been consulted about this scheme, and that has agreed with it.

Mr. Mander: I was going to ask whether the committee had been consulted; but perhaps one goes with the other. I was going to suggest that on any other matters the same procedure might be adopted, so that this committee might

have the prestige that it would obtain from being officially recognised. With regard to the financial side of this Bill, the Treasury does not seem to have been particularly generous to the claimants. It has taken no action for nine months. It is now proposed to pay an unspecified rate of interest on certain bonds for an unspecified period, to meet all the claims, but only to a limited extent. I think that the British Government ought not to be paying interest, if they are responsible for it, at the rate of 6 per cent., 7½ per cent. or 8 per cent.; that is far too high. The view, I suppose, is taken that this is only to cover a temporary period. The question has been raised as to how long the period will be during which payment of interest can be kept up. I understand, from certain calculations that have been made, that it would last for about 10 years; and I should like to know whether that is correct.
I assume that the reason why the Government are using the money by way of interest, instead of repayment of capital, is that they hope that in less than 10 years there will have been set up a free Czecho-Slovakian State which will be able to take responsibility for its own affairs once more. I think we ought to be informed how many of these bonds are held to-day by British holders, and precisely what are the intentions with regard to the future payments of interest. Under the proposed scheme, as has already been pointed out, the actual Czech assets blocked in this country, amounting to £17,000,000, are not going to be touched at all. It is proposed to use only the unexpended balance of the loan made to the Czecho-Slovak Government after Munich. I think we ought to have some definite assurance with regard to the Government's intentions about these blocked assets over here. I hope they are going to be used at some future date for the citizens of Czecho-Slovakia itself, that the money is not being kept back for the purpose of any bargaining with the German Government as a result of which some portion may go to Germany. I am sure that that is so; but certain suspicions are abroad, and it would be a useful thing for them to be destroyed once for all by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that there can be no room left for misunderstanding.
I agree that strong arguments can be adduced in favour of meeting all the claims of British holders. So far as cash claims are concerned, there is no question that they ought to be met in full, and at once. No indication is given as to when the Treasury proposes to repay the balance of these claims. Under Clause 4, no statement need be given to the House of Commons until 30th November next. I think we ought get some statement from the Government long before that date as to what they propose to do; otherwise, the Treasury will have power to do anything they like without accounting to the House of Commons. We ought to have information with regard to these points: the amount of the bonds held by British holders, the manner in which it is proposed to deal with the interest payments, the probable amount of cash payments, and the amount which will be available. I hope we can have the assurance that such claims as can be substantiated will be met in full, and very quickly. There is one point in connection with paragraph 6 of the scheme. There, it is stated that
For the purpose of this scheme, CzechoSlovakia shall not include Sudetenland.
I quite understand how that arose: it was a post-Munich arrangement. But it seems to me, in view of all that has happened since, very unfair that some Czech subjects who might have been living in that area at the time, or some Sudeten Germans whose only crime was that they were democrats and loyal to the State of which they were citizens, should be deprived of all opportunities of benefiting under this Bill. I should like the Government to consider, before they finally settle the terms of this scheme, whether that paragraph ought not, in the light of things as they are now, to come out altogether.
I should like to say a word with regard to the funds which it is proposed to spend on refugees. A considerable amount is available there. Of course, the problem is entirely different from what it was before the war broke out. Originally, the problem was to emigrate as many Czechs as possible, whether from Bohemia or Moravia or from this country, on permanent settlement schemes abroad. Such a scheme was partly carried out, with success, in Palestine, and another scheme

was fully carried out in Canada. The war has changed all that. Obviously, emigration from this country is extremely difficult, and it is practically impossible for any Czechs to get out from their own country. It may well be that Czechs living over here now who, until recently, contemplated with satisfaction settlement abroad, are now looking forward to a time when they can go back to their old country and take up the life which was stopped so suddenly not long ago. It may be that as unemployment decreases in this country and there is a demand for the high qualities of many of these Czech subjects as craftsmen, workers in industry, or soldiers, they will be taken up into employment. Therefore it would seem that this fund will be used, to a considerable extent, for maintenance during such a transitional period. If the transitional period of maintenance were to be of any prolonged duration the strain on the finances of the fund would be very grave indeed; and I sincerely hope that that problem will not actually arise.
I do not think that in dealing with this Bill one can possibly overlook the situation which would have existed if the Treasury had been a little more alive and if the two British directors of the Bank for International Settlements, Mr. Montagu Norman and Sir Otto Niemeyer, had more effectively carried out their duties, and prevented £6,000,000 of Czech gold being transferred to Germany in March of last year. This Bill would have been quite a different Measure then. I hope that that will not occur again. It was not only £6,000,000; a further £1,000,000 of Czech gold was paid over to Germany in August last by the Bank for International Settlements. I understand that the accounts are now so altered as to make it impossible to identify as easily as was the case before what is taking place. In speaking of that, I am speaking of a deplorable event in the past.
There is something that I think might still be done in the way of securing financial support by putting forward our claims, although, I must say, I do not put my hopes too high. The Treasury has a trust deposit account with the Bank for International Settlements. Although these deposits are invested in Germany, the responsibility for repayment is with the Bank for International Settlements, by virtue of The Hague Agreement of 1930


and the Brussels Protocol of 1936. The German Government have actually undertaken that they will not place any restrictions upon the transfer of assets of this kind, even in time of war. I think that, to help us in a Measure of this kind, the Treasury ought to insist to the utmost of its power—which it has not done up to now—on repayment, and that the Bank for International Settlements should insist on the release of the fund by the German Government. It may be that the German Government would repudiate this agreement, as they have repudiated others, but we surely ought to press our claims to the utmost, to do all we can to get the money. If they are shown once more as breakers of oaths, well, so be it. I imagine that one of the effects might be the insolvency of the Bank for International Settlements itself. I do not know that that would be such a deplorable event.
This Measure is really only an attempt to bridge over a period of the war. We all look forward to the time—I am afraid it is not coming very soon, but we hope it will not be too distant—when that splendid democratic State of CzechoSlovakia will arise once more, in some form, and take its rightful place among the nations of the world. From all we have known and seen of them in the past, we know that they will, as ever, be in the forefront of the peoples of the world in the sphere of civilisation and culture.

5.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: I share the surprise which has been expressed by practically every Member who has spoken at the smallness of the amount dealt with by this proposed legislation. It is really only the balance of sums which we ourselves have given or lent to CzechoSlovakia. There is still this very large sum of blocked assets, which has not keen touched at all. In reply to Questions in this House, it has been stated that these blocked assets total from £16,000,000 to £17,000,000 or £17,500,000. They consist of bank balances in this country, owned by Czechs who succeeded in escaping from Czecho-Slovakia. They consisted of bank balances in this country owned by the Czechs, and there was a large sum in gold which had been deposited by the Bank of Czecho-Slovakia in the Bank of England. We also heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the intention to use these balances

to satisfy those who had claims on the Government of Czecho-Slovakia. Let us see just how that is being carried out. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said that he understood, as the result of calculations, that the funds in hand would be sufficient to meet the interest upon those loans for eight or ten years, but my information is totally different. It is to the effect that the funds available will not meet the interest on the loans for more than a couple of years at the very most. In addition the financial claims are not being met in their entirety at all, but only in part, the argument being that funds are not available. There is only a sum of £3,500,000 available for meeting these claims.
I think everybody agrees that the first claims on the fund are those of refugees in this country and claims for money which should be used, if these people choose to remain here or to migrate still further, in the direction of giving them a chance of earning their livelihood in the country of their adoption. When those claims have been reasonably satisfied the claims of British holders or holders of British balances should come next. I cannot for the life of me see the reason why this £7,000,000 gold deposit in the Bank of England, should, if necessary, not be used for that purpose. I have always understood that that money has been deposited here towards meeting the services of the various loans which had been floated in this country. That was the reason why those loans always stood so high in the market. The loans which are dealt with here, and the Skoda debentures have always stood at or above their par value, and, as far as I can see, there is not the least reason why, if necessary, these funds should not be brought into this account to meet these claims.
The Austrian 4½ per cent. loan has been mentioned once or twice. The position, as I understand it, is that the Government of Czecho-Slovakia have guaranteed, as have the Government of this country, the Government of France and of one or two other countries, 24½ per cent. of that loan—not 24½ per cent. of the loan raised or held in this country, but 24½ per cent. of the total amount. That is the liability of this country, of France and of Czecho-Slovakia. If these guarantees are implemented it will mean


that interest will have to be paid no matter where those bonds are held or wherever they were issued. In the circumstances, being at war with Germany, we can refuse to pay any interest to German holders.
There is another situation which has arisen. The Government of Italy and the Government of Holland have both declined to implement their guarantee and have advanced a curious reason for doing so. It is that, as they are still receiving money from Germany, they are not in any way interested. Should Germany cease to pay the necessary money to Holland and to Italy to enable them to pay the interest on bonds held there, we should not in any circumstances whatever allow any of the money contributed by the British Government to be used for meeting the claims of bondholders in Italy or in Holland. If they have refused to implement their guarantee, as far as we are concerned, then we are entitled to refuse to implement our guarantee as far as they are concerned. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, or the Financial Secretary or whoever may be replying, can give us some information as to what funds are likely to be available, and the claims which these funds will have to meet, and also the reason why this large amount of gold deposit in the Bank of England cannot be brought into account for the purpose of satisfying these claims.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think that the whole House is indebted to the Financial Secretary for the clarity with which he has explained an extremely complicated Measure, and we are also indebted to the Government for having produced this White Paper, which throws further light on the details of the way in which one section of this Bill is to be worked by the Government. I want to ask the Financial Secretary whether he could take steps to provide a similar White Paper to deal with the Clause relating to the gift which is being expended for the benefit of refugees. There is a further reason for that. There is a good deal of uncertainty as to the way in which the money already spent on behalf of these refugees has been administered. It would be of great interest to the public, and especially to those who are interested in refugees, if they could know the way in which the gift already advanced has been expended

for the benefit of Czech refugees, and also be a great help to know the broad lines of the plans that are proposed by the Trust for administering the larger sum which will shortly be made available to them by the wise action of the Government for the benefit of the Czech refugees. Is it possible for the Government 10 make it clear that they are going to put the widest construction upon the terms "Czech refugee"? It has already been pointed out how important it is that they should include those from the Sudetenland as well as from Czecho-Slovakia in its narrower connotation. It is also important to make it possible, if, in the not too distant future, happy events should facilitate the return of refugees to a free Czecho-Slovakia, for money to be made available for that purpose and not merely for settling them overseas, which is the original intention of the main purpose of the fund.
I want to raise on behalf of my colleague, who is unable to be present to-day, for a reason that we all respect and deplore, one special point in connection with this question of Czech refugees. There are a considerable number of refugees now in this country from Czecho-Slovakia, but in many cases the wives or husbands or children, as the case may be, are still, unhappily, in that territory and unable to reach this country. Could not use be made of that fund in order to make it possible for such divided families to be reunited by the absent member passing through a neutral country? There are well substantiated cases where a neutral country could give a transit visa, but they will only give it if they have at least an informal assurance that the refugee will be allowed to enter this country, and it is not at present possible to do that. It is quite possible that a wide door could be opened of which unsatisfactory use might be made by those who are now in control of CzechoSlovakia, but I am assuming that proper precautions would be taken. In these cases, I hope that this fund may be made available for the reuniting of refugees who are now, unhappily, separated as a result of the war. I hope that the Government may make the position clear by issuing a White Paper dealing with matters to which the right hon. Gentleman probably will hardly be able to reply on the spur of the moment at the conclusion of this Debate.

5.57 p.m.

Major Procter: I am sure that all the Czech refugees are extremely thankful to the British Government for making it possible for them to recover something of their fortunes which they have lost through German aggression, but I do not really think that many British people understand the wise and generous provisions which have been made to implement Britain's word. It is an astounding thing, yet it is worthy of our highest traditions that men and women have found asylum here and have been given freedom and the right to live a well ordered life, that the Government of the country which has given them protection have acted as a debt collector and saved from the hands of the aggressor huge sums of money, which they have given to the refugees in this country.
This is an enabling Bill, which can only be understood by reference to the White Paper, and it makes the position of the refugees in this country better than that of the Czecho-Slovakians themselves who are resident in their own country. I do not think that that is understood or that credit has been given for the provision in this Bill that makes that possible. Any Czecho-Slovakian who had a bank balance, especially if he was of Jewish origin, would, if he had remained in Czecho-Slovakia, have lost all his money. No Czecho-Slovakian who is resident in Holland or in France or even in the United States of America has got such a deal as that which the British Government have given him by means of this Bill. I am certain that these patriotic men —and I have spoken to many of them—are not only grateful but surprised that they have recovered anything at all, and it is because of that that I regret that the British Government have not used this opportunity of helping Czecho-Slovakia, the refugees and themselves on an equitable basis. What is proposed here is to pay out to the refugee in hard cash half his claim. The British Government is in fact acting as a debt collector on behalf of the refugees here. I do not think for one moment that any Czech refugee would have objected if the British Government instead of giving them their money in cash had given it to them in British War Loan. I suggest that if there is another half to be paid, it should be given in the form of War Loan. All the guaranteed loans mentioned in the White

Paper should be converted into British stock or at least the interest payable should not exceed the British War Loan interest rate. If this money is paid out in sterling—and I am not suggesting that the first instalment should not be so paid out—arrangements could have been made with the Czech Committee that the Czech Legion, which it is hoped to establish here, should receive part of this money to equip itself for the fight for the restoration of liberty to Bohemia. There is a splendid opportunity now for getting £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 into the British Treasury which could have been shared with the Czech Committee to help equip Czech soldiers and to finance its propaganda.
Having said that on the general questions of the Bill, I propose to call attention to page 3 of the White Paper beginning with the word "shown." Under the scheme set out in the White Paper a new status is given to the Czecho-Slovakian or other claimants—the status known as "British holder." As I understand it a British holder may be of any nationality, but if he be of Czech or any other nationality there are three important dates which determine his claim. The first condition is that he has a claim for an amount owned by him at all times from 14th March, 1939, to 3rd September, 1939, the holder must be resident in this country on 3rd September and that he must be also resident, after he has put in his relevant claim, until 31st January, 1940. What I would like to know is this: What is the position of a man who was the beneficial owner of the claim on 14th March but who between that date and 3rd September may have made an assignment of his claim to another British holder? According to the precise meaning of this paragraph it would appear that neither has any claim whatever. Is this paragraph designed to secure continuity of holding in the claim? It may be that the Treasury has a valid reason. It may wish to prevent any exploitation of the refugees. I can understand that condition being made now, but there may have been an assignment without any exploitation. The refugee may have assigned his claim to a bank in order that he may get sufficient money on which to live. According to this White Paper it would appear as if both the Czech refugee and the person to whom the claim has


been assigned cannot make a claim at all because there has not been continuity of holding.
There arises another position—that of a man who may have been a beneficial holder on 14th March and may have been resident here on the 3rd September, but who may have decided to join the Czech Legion on the outbreak of war and at this moment be in France. Unless he can come back here by 31st January he is out of the picture and his claim is lost. Furthermore, there may be, indeed there are, other Czechs who have been desirous of taking up occupations in this country but who have been precluded by the conditions of their permit from working here. They may have decided that they would go to some other part of the British Empire. They have put in their claim just as others have done and perhaps on the 2nd September sailed for Canada. They may have gone there merely to look round. They, too, are outside the terms of this Act if my reading of the White Paper is correct. Therefore, I ask the Minister if he will consider the rewording of this Section so that it reads as follows:
For the purpose of this paragraph (I, c) the expression British holder ' means an individual who was resident in the United Kingdom or a corporation which was ordinarily carrying on business in the United Kingdom at any time between 14th March, 1939, and 3rd September, 1939.
To these I would add the words:
Or is either so resident or carrying on business on the date on which the relative claim is made by him or is on that date resident in a British Dominion or colony or in the Republic of France.
The reason I have included France is to bring in those who were here on the 3rd September and would have been here now but for the fact that they answered the call for volunteers and therefore cannot be here. In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity of congratulating the British Government in living up to its traditions of being a refuge for the oppressed. I congratulate the Government for giving to the refugees better and more just treatment than they have received in any other country in the world.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Benson: Before I congratulate the Government on this Bill on the lines of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, I think I should require a little more information. Frankly,

the White Paper does not tell us very much. In fact it tells us very little. What I am primarily concerned about is how much is going to British individuals and companies and how much is likely to go to the Czechs. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, East (Mr. Boothby) suggested that old-established British companies should have preference over newly-arrived Czech refugees, but I would point out that this money was originally provided for the purpose of helping Czecho-Slovakia. The hon. Member and the whole House remembers what happened after the Munich affair when the Government attempted to salve its conscience by granting £10,000,000 to Czecho-Slovakia. Four million pounds has been definitely earmarked for the refugees but the other £6,000,000 is now apparently to be used partly for the Czechs in this country and partly for paying interest on Czech loans to British bondholders. That was outside the scope or the intention of the House when the original loan was agreed to by the Government. It was not granted for the purpose of indemnifying British shareholders. Yet some of the money is to be put to this use. How much I do not know. If the House had known of the ultimate end of the money I doubt whether there would have been so much enthusiasm as there was at the time.
The real question is whether we can afford under the original motives to grant this money for the purpose of paying bondholders their interest and for taking up Czech Treasury bills and bonds that have matured. I am concerned that the £4,000,000 allocated to refugees has already sunk to £2,900,000. How long will it be before the £4,000,000 is used up entirely? The hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) suggested a number of methods by which the Czechs could be helped in addition to the help already given. If they should be carried out, the residue of the £4,000,000 will dwindle even more rapidly. I think we ought to know more definitely how much of the £3,500,000 loan money is to go to the people to whom we originally intended it should go, and how much is going into the hands of British bondholders. It is not the concern of this House to compensate British holders when their loans go wrong, certainly not out of funds which are allocated for the benefit of Czecho-Slovakians. We


cannot get any idea whether it is really a case of misfeasance or whether we have The money available to help the bondholders until the Treasury have provided us with the information we ought to have of the various sums allocated and the amounts; and whether there will be adequate funds left to deal with the Czech refugees.

Mr. Boothby: May I put this point to the lion. Member? I agree with him that we are not greatly concerned with the bondholders, and I think the Government should sharply restrict the period and rate of interest which is paid. My point was only with regard to the cash claims. There is enough money to meet them. My point was not to meet the interests of British bondholders, but to see that the cash payments are made, because I know there is enough money available to pay them.

Mr. Benson: I agree that the blocked Czecho-Slovakian assets may well be set against the English claims, but we are not dealing with them in this Bill. It deals entirely with money which comes from the British Treasury, with money derived from the British taxpayer, which was granted for a specific purpose. Under the Bill it is now to be deflected from the purpose for which it was originally granted.

6.18 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I propose to say only a few words in reply to the Debate. The House is to have a Debate on the black-out immediately, but I hope the House will not think the black-out has been anticipated in the discussion on this very technical and difficult question. At the same time, I am grateful to hon. Members for the way in which they have received the Bill. I appreciate the courtesy with which hon. Members have received the White Paper; that is the scheme as we envisage it. We shall, of course, consider the various arguments which have been put forward with regard to one paragraph or another. What is the good of having a House of Commons unless we are going to weigh up the considerations which have been put before us in a Debate like this? There are certain questions which I may perhaps answer beginning with one by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) who asked what were the intentions of the Government with

regard to the remaining blocked funds which are not covered by the Bill. Various hon. Members have asked how much they are. The amount, I think, is about £10,000,000 sterling. These assets are blocked to-day, and it is the intention to leave them blocked until the end of the war. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, so it seemed to me, thought that was the right thing to do, but an hon. Member below the Gangway wanted these blocked assets to be used by the existing Czech National Committee. Whatever views hon. Members may hold about the matter, our intention is that they should remain blocked until the end of the war, and that we cannot in fairness to all parties decide on their disposal during the war. That must be part of the arrangements which will be made at the conclusion of hostilities and, therefore, in circumstances which none of us can foresee.

Mr. Mander: Can the Financial Secretary give an assurance that it is not intended that this money should in any circumstances go to Germany, but should inure wholly for the benefit of the CzechoSlovakian Government and their subjects?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot imagine why this money should go to Germany in any circumstances, but I am talking about what is to happen in the immediate future, and our view is that these assets must remain blocked until the end of the war. The right hon. Gentleman also asked why there was no reference to categories (b) and (d)—financial obligations which were registered in accordance with the Bank of England circular on 3rd April last. It is true that paragraphs (b) and (d) have now disappeared from the picture. The reason is that a great deal of water has flowed down the Thames since 3rd April, and the circumstances now are not what they were on 3rd April. I do not want to go into details, but if hon. Members are interested they should look up a reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Hammersley) on 13th July in which he said that after the Recess he hoped to submit a scheme to the House and referred to the difficult problems which were concerned in this matter. He also stated that he would take up the matter with the German Government. But things


have happened since then which make it impossible that there should be discussions with the German Government and, therefore, these particular categories are not dealt with here. The right hon. Gentleman made a specific point about cooperative accounts. I think I can say this to him. We are not quite sure that these accounts are of such a type as could be easily verified. If they could be brought within the scheme we should be glad to consider doing so.
Another point which I should like to answer in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was how much the claims amount to. Until they have been examined no one can possibly say. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, East (Mr. Boothby) expressed the fear that the extension of the time-limit for the registration of claims would involve further delay in making payment on them. This extension is only until the 31st of this month, and so could hardly cause any delay. There is no intention of altering the time-limit and that is why I went out of my way to give a timely warning in my speech on that matter. The question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) as regards assignments is a legal matter which I should like to consider with my legal advisers. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) asked a question with regard to the Trust Fund. I wonder whether he has overlooked the fact that a White Paper, Cmd. Paper 6076, was circulated in July setting out the Trust Deed with a letter of direction to the trustees from the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Harvey: I had not forgotten that, but circumstances have so altered since that date and the whole position is so completely different that it may well be desirable to reconsider the question of these trust funds.

Captain Crookshank: That is perhaps a matter which I think the hon. Member can best elucidate by question and answer, but the trust still continues and the money is paid to these trustees under this Bill. I do not know whether he was putting his question on behalf of his colleague the hon. Member for the English

Universities (Miss Rathbone), but if so, it is a fact that the advisory council includes the name of the hon. Lady as one of its members, so that she at any rate can keep in touch with the day to day development of the matter.
Until we have the final claims all brought in and an examination made, it is impossible to make any estimate of the amount. The question which has been raised several times is that of the various obligations in the White Paper and the rates of interest. The answer to that is that by the scheme, if it commends itself to Parliament, we are not stepping into the shoes of the debtor country for all purposes, but that only for a certain period, which is not determined, we propose to pay interest on a selected part of these obligations. We are not in a position to make any alteration by way of funding the loan; what we are doing is to step into the shoes of the CzechoSlovakian Government for the purposes only of payment, as governed by the White Paper. There are plenty of people who are holders of these funds who are not living in this country. There is nothing we can do—

Mr. Boothby: Except limit the period.

Captain Crookshank: There is no predetermined period because we have to wait and see what the claims are, what categories we can pay out, and also the validity of the documents we get. Obviously, it is unsatisfactory that the matter should be as fluid as that, but it is necessary. I can only end by expressing my thanks to hon. Members for the criticisms and comments they have made and to assure them that my right hon. Friend. the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself will certainly go carefully into them, and if we feel that the Order in its present form can be altered usefully in any respect as a result of this discussion, we shall of course do so. I think this arrangement will be satisfactory to the House as a whole.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow, put, and agreed to.—[Lieut.-Colonel C. Kerr.]

CZECHO - SLOVAKIA (FINANCIAL CLAIMS AND REFUGEES [REPAYMENT AND REMISSION OF DEBT].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide for the disposal of the balances of certain banking accounts representing sums lent or given by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the Government of the CzechoSlovak Republic, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of a sum equal to the amount advanced out of moneys provided by Parliament to the trustees of a trust referred to in the said Act as the Czecho-Slovak Refugee Trust, and the treatment of the said sum as having been repaid by the said trustees."—(King's recommendation signified.)—[Captain Crookshank.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.)

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Montague: I wish to take advantage of the Motion for the Adjournment ill order to raise a question of very great public importance at this time. It is no exaggeration to say that the people of the country have been appalled by the recently-published figures showing an increase in road accidents largely because of the black-out. Those figures are indeed appalling, and they rather confirm, more than do other things, the legitimacy of the use of the words "home front"; for during last month, there were no fewer than 1,200 deaths on the roads of this country, 900 of them occurring during the black-out. It is unfortunate that there are not available the figures of those injured, but if we use the comparisons that are available, we find that the figure of deaths last month indicates that something like at least 30,000 people were injured, in addition to the fatalities. During the last four months of 1939, in spite of the vast decrease in traffic during three of those months, no fewer than 4,123 people met their death because of road accidents, and many of those accidents, certainly during the greater part of the period, occurred during the black-out. It is very desirable that the House should press for

further information on this subject, and that we should ask what is being done and what amount of thought has been devoted to this extremely urgent problem. It is, of course, useless to make comparisons between these terrible figures and the figures of casualties caused directly by war activities, for we do not know what these war casualties will amount to in the future, and such comparisons are rather out of place. Nevertheless, it is an appalling thought that, if the figure remains the same proportionately, the total in one year alone, quite apart from the whole course of the war, if it lasts a considerable time, will be something very much in the nature of the casualties of active warfare.
On examining the figures, I find that some parts of the country suffer more severely than others. For instance, in Birmingham there was an increase of no less than 81 per cent. in road casualties last month, and the figures in Glasgow nearly trebled. I know that the people of Glasgow, and hon. Members representing Glasgow divisions, are very much concerned about the way in which the authorities in that Scottish city are dealing, or not dealing as the case may be, with this problem. It is not sufficient to say that the black-out is the cause and that we have to put up with the consequences of measures that have to be taken to protect us in London and the big cities of the country; because it is a fact that there are other parts of the country where during the last three months, in spite of the black-out, the figures showed very much better results than in other parts of the country. There were quoted in the "Daily Herald "this morning figures which I thought were very significant. Those figures referred to the city of Salford, where the number of deaths was very small, being only nine killed during last month, and only five of them in the dark. But in Salford the police are specially dressed in white; they have white helmets, there are red electric bulbs in their helmets, and they use green and red torches to direct the traffic. A little later in my remarks I want to say something about the reduction of police activities in connection with the control of traffic in relation to this problem of road accidents. I do not want to raise seriously the question of motorists versus pedestrians, and if I am inclined to take the side of the pedestrians, it is only because I feel that their side of the matter should be stated in the House,


and because I know there will be hon. Members who will put the case for the motorists if it is considered desirable to elaborate that aspect of the question. I agree with what Mr. Max Beerbohm said on the wireless the other day:
After all, pedestrians do not threaten motorists. Motorists threaten pedestrians".
We are all entitled to the use of the roads even in war time, and as far as it may be necessary to use roads and highways, the pedestrian is equally entitled with the motorist to the utmost safety that can be maintained by means of the efforts of the authorities concerned. We are told that the greater number of deaths on the roads were of old people and very young people. I think it will be agreed that we cannot afford to lose the lives of the young people, but the old people, too, have as many rights as other sections of the community. We are all young and old, too, if we live long enough. Moreover, as the war goes on, we shall find that the elderly people of the country will be called upon to resume much greater responsibilities than they do normally in peace time, and will be more actively engaged in various departments of war work.
This raises a question to which I hope the Minister of Transport will give his very close attention this evening—namely, the use of the motor car upon the highways during the black-out. Should there be a more restricted speed limit in built-up areas in towns and cities and should those restrictions be enforced legally to a very much greater extent than is done at present? It has been suggested by certain people whose views are worth considering—by members of the various organisations dealing with road problems —that there should be enforced, for blackout purposes only, a speed limit of 15 miles an hour. I am not a motorist and I cannot speak with any great authority on the details as to whether 15 miles an hour is practicable. I know that 15 miles an hour in a motor car does not seem to be very fast, and as far as concerns public service vehicles, large motor lorries, and so on, I can quite understand that if such a restriction was maintained, those vehicles would have to keep on very low gears and expend a great amount of petrol. The problem cannot be solved in that way in any practicable measure. Nevertheless, that does not alter the fact

that the problem has to be solved, for we cannot go on with these figures month after month during the whole of the war. I think reasonable people will accept the proposition that the sole principle in considering the speed at which a motorist should travel in the conditions of a blackout should be whether he can pull up within the area of luminosity that is available to him. This is what an insurance official, who is a motorist, says in a letter to the "Manchester Guardian."
Already I have had reported hundreds of black-out accidents involving injury to pedestrians or pedal-cyclists. When one comes to study the claim forms completed by the motorists, one finds in a very large proportion of the cases that the motor vehicle has been driven at anything between 20 and 30 miles an hour. This is the motorist's own estimate of his speed, and he can be relied upon not to over-estimate.
I think that agrees with the experience of people who use their powers of observation in built-up areas, as well as in the suburban areas of London and provincial cities. But the question whether a motorist is able to see within the limited amount of luminous space in front of him that is allowed by the lighting regulations for headlamps raises a matter that is not frequently mentioned—I have not seen it mentioned in any newspaper so far—and that is the small car, which represents, I suppose, the majority of cars on the road, whose driver is very often low-pitched, if that phrase explains what I mean. He is very low down in the car. There are also some high-powered big cars which are deliberately low-pitched, so that the driver cannot see immediately in front of the wheels. Many thousands of cars are so constructed that, under the conditions of the black-out, together with the restrictions imposed on lighting, the driver cannot see more than the fringe of that little circle of light which is allowed to him. That justifies either more and better lighting and better illumination of the streets by a modification of the present black-out arrangements, or else a reduction in the speed of motor-cars. I am aware that the Air Force people, who have carried out patrols in respect of London are opposed to any further modification of the black-out. They should know their own business and what is necessary to carry out their ideals of protection for our big cities, but to my mind it simply must be one thing or the other.
I do not wish to prejudice discussion because I know there are two sides, indeed many sides to a question of this character, but the facts seem to me to point to some requirement in the direction of lowering the speed limit in built-up areas during the black-out period. Cities and towns like Bristol, Oxford, Manchester and many others are calling for such a restriction. The Minister of Transport on 13th December, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) said he was not convinced that a reduction in road casualties would necessarily be achieved by the imposition of a reduced speed limit but that the Minister for Home Security and himself were taking steps to review this and any other measure which might be considered likely to lead to a reduction of road casualties during the blackout period. In reply to a Supplementary Question, the Minister also said that on the day when he became convinced that a proposal of that kind would achieve the object which they had in view he would be prepared to recommend it. I think the time has come to ask the Minister at what opinion he has arrived upon this question and I hope that this evening he will be able to say something very definite on the question of the speed limit during the black-out period in built-up areas.
There is one special point about which I wish to ask the Minister a question. I understand that the police of various municipalities have been advised to "go slow" about their duties in the control of traffic because of the waste of petrol. I think that is very unwise. If the police do not carry out the duties normally 'assigned to them for the protection of the civilian upon the high road, it gives the motorist who has no social conscience—and I know that he is in a small minority —a chance of doing what he pleases, not only in daylight but also during the black-out. It is possible to worship the idea of speed for the sake of speed, even under black-out conditions. I have seen speeds being maintained at such times which were appalling having regard to the circumstances. I read in a newspaper yesterday a comparison between the ordinary use of petrol and the use of petrol by the Royal Air Force in which the remarkable statement was made that a journey to the Heligoland Bight by

one of our high-speed bombers used up as much petrol as would be used by a small car in 20 years. It seems an extravagant statement but it was made by a journalist and I suppose a journalist writing in a reputable paper may be trusted even upon a technical matter of this kind. But if it is true that there has been an order to the police of local authorities to use less petrol at the expense of the safety of the public on the high roads, then that is something which simply cannot be justified.
There is another question to which I ask the Minister's attention, It relates to the London Passenger Transport Board but it applies also to other bodies of both a public and a private character. I refer to public service vehicles and to lorries which convey produce of various kinds. The London Passenger Transport Board seems to have lost all its old attitude of consideration for the public. I do not want to go into all the instances but I am sure that large numbers of people in London feel that they do not get anything like the consideration and courtesy which used to be extended to them in connection with London traffic. I could give a number of instances which would be out of place in a Debate of this character but here is a case in which the regulations of the Board definitely make for danger in the streets of London. The journeys made by the buses are scheduled. Private firms also make schedules for the journeys of their employes but in the case of the buses it is particularly dangerous for this reason. The London Passenger Transport Board has recently made changes, and as an illustration of these I give the case of a journey which was normally a 59-minute journey—when I say normally I mean taking the figures which existed before the war—and has now as a war measure been reduced to 55 minutes in the course of the day. [HON. MEMBERS: "In the black-out? "] I am coming to that.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Can my hon. Friend indicate the nature of the journey. It might be on a country road or it might be on a congested road. It is important to know that.

Mr. Montague: It is, I believe, a route which goes rather out of London. It goes from the middle of London out of London. I cannot give the exact route but I can find it out if necessary. As I


was about to say, the time has been reduced to 55 minutes for the day and to make up for that, a 51 minute journey has been increased to 55 minutes during the black-out, so that you have—and this has been the purpose—an evening up of the times. Only four minutes grace is allowed on the schedule to the driver of the bus in the black-out and it was the driver himself who gave me the figures. When one realises that more time is taken in picking up passengers during the black-out and the fact that in such a journey, of practically an hour's duration, there would be 18 or 20 or more stops, the allowance of an extra four minutes during the black-out is out of the question. Anyone can see upon some of the roads of London that the drivers have to strain their eyes—and it is a strain. If the driver sees even a piece of paper on the road or the lighted end of a cigarette it has an effect upon his nerves but in spite of that they have to endeavour to keep up to those times. This seems to be a regulation which could, at least, be modified by the London Passenger Transport Board and I invite the Minister to make a special note of it.
The greatest danger is in the period "between the lights." I understand that the largest number of accidents occur during the hour after the beginning of the black-out and the hour before the end of the black-out. This is an interesting reflection upon the experiments that have been made in London with what is called "star lighting." It seems to me that the idea of allowing just a glimmer is more likely to lead to accidents than otherwise. It certainly does not help the motorist. It may give some sort of sense of direction to the pedestrian but it probably places the motorist in a more difficult position than ever, just because that kind of light is akin to the twilight which prevails at the beginning and end of the black-out. The pedestrian in those circumstances or even in the complete black-out has great difficulty in judging distances and speeds and this brings me again to the point about the control of traffic.
I am sorry that the automatic system of lights in London has led to so much unnecessary reduction in that traffic control which is really required in normal times, let alone during the black-out. I

give an illustration of what I mean, which every Member of the House can follow. There is a crossing at the end of the Strand by Trafalgar Square which I "make "every night, and on more than one occasion I have very nearly been the victim of a certain practice which ought to be stopped but which cannot be stopped unless at important places such as that a policeman remains on point duty with green and red torches as is done in Salford. I have noticed over and over again that when the traffic lights have changed, one or two cars—perhaps one car out of a number lined up ready to go on—will accelerate suddenly. There may be a little glimmer about. Perhaps there has not been a complete black-out at that point. There, as in other parts of London, because of various circumstances there may be a little glimmer here and there and where there is that little glimmer, a certain type of motorist will accelerate quickly and get off the mark as fast as he can.
I have seen people walking across the street and faced with that sudden acceleration when the lights changed, and they have been compelled to run to get out of the way. On one occasion I saw a person trip on the kerb and fall as a result. If that happens at important crossings in many parts of London, it may provide some explanation of what one has read in the newspapers about people being caught under buses and vehicles of various kinds and not being discovered until they had been carried miles away. I draw the Minister's attention to the desirability of some control at important crossings, apart from the automatic lights. I think also there should be a larger number of those lights known, I think, as St. Andrew's Cross lights. In my district they have been extremely useful, and I imagine that an extension of them would be valuable.
Then there is the question of whether we need so much black-out. Again, we have, of course, the view of the people who are most concerned and who are technically able to deal with the question better, I suppose, than any ordinary person, namely the Air Force and those who have gone up to examine from the air the actual results of the black-out. It seems to me that a great deal of nonsense is being talked about the impossibility of a master-switch which could be used to turn the lights of a town down when


there was an air-raid warning sounded, or a yellow warning given. We are told, or at any rate I have heard, that one of the difficulties is that if all the electricity is turned out at once there is a chance of accidents taking place in the power station. I should have thought that could have been got over. When a town is lighted I suppose it is done by sections, as is done when towns are lit by gas, and that technical people could easily get over the difficulty. There seems to me no reason why towns should not be partially lit by light better than starlight, and that the lighting should be controlled by the electrical authorities.
I should like to say a word or two from the point of view of the pedestrian. I have a number of notes from the bus driver to whom I referred earlier. He is a member of my own party and that is how I know him. I saw him, and he gave me a number of points which I think are very valuable, so valuable that if they were broadcast in some way or another, and given some kind of publicity, they would be very helpful indeed. He refers, for instance, to the question of torches, and says that the use of torches by pedestrians is one of the greatest difficulties with which motorists, and, especially, the public service vehicle motorists, have to deal, because the bus driver is higher than the ordinary driver. The pedestrian imagines that the thing to do is to illuminate somebody else when what he really should do is to illuminate himself. That is a point people should be allowed to know, and we might spend a little money, a few thousand pounds, or. really good publicity of this kind so that people would know what they ought to do. The bus driver says, and I quote this point, that
The shining of torches in a uniform and proper manner is very effective when hailing a bus.
There, again, T have seen people at request stop stations go out into the road with their torch-lights, risking being run over by other vehicles than the bus they wish to stop, and, do not forget, this is at a time when there are these restrictions on time in schedules and when there is a tendency for the bus driver, a little behind time, not to notice the request signal from somebody upon the pavement. Because of that, people go off the pavement into the road, hold up their torches to hail

buses and very often in consequence accidents occur. The bus driver suggests holding the torch chest-high, about 18 inches away from the body, and directing the beam on to the knees. He goes on to say:
the torch nuisance is not confined to the highway. A passenger, on the lower deck of the bus, getting on to the bus will often shine his torch right into the cabin of the driver.
A little point like that can be made public for the information of the pedestrian. Another suggestion that has been made, I believe in the Press, and which is also referred to by the bus driver, is the use by cyclists of a little white pennant attached to the front mudguard in front of his light. A pennant would not only give a signal to on-coming motorists, and motorists from behind who could see the cyclist when his bicycle swerved, but would also be useful in the case, where many accidents occur, where the driver of a car enters the road from a side street. That strikes me as a particularly good suggestion, because everyone knows that movement attracts attention more than anything else.
Finally there is the question of drink. I am not a fanatic upon that matter, not by any means, and perhaps one hon. Member who is not present at the moment might be exceedingly interested in this question. When I quoted Glasgow I had in mind that a great deal is being said about drunkenness being the cause of road accidents during black-outs, drunkenness perhaps on the part of some motorist, or on the part of pedestrians. I do not know whether it applies to Glasgow or whether it applies generally, but drink certainly causes some accidents. I am sometimes appalled when I see in the black-out cars parked in huge numbers outside road-houses on the outskirts of London. Everyone knows the effect of alcohol on the mind. I do not think it is a bad thing occasionally for people to have a little relaxation of the tension of the human body, but everyone knows that in handling a machine like a motor car, which is after all a ton or two of very deadly machinery, a man who is in the slightest degree under the influence of drink is not the man to be in charge of it. I feel that some attention ought to be given to that, especially when you see all over the country, and particularly at week-ends, people going to places where


drink is a great element of the entertainment. Often these people have come a long way and have to get back to London. Possibly they are the cause of a great number of the accidents that occur, I do not know, because we have not got any accurate figures on the subject, but I feel that every person who is convicted of being under the influence of drink when in charge of a motor car, and, particularly, if he has caused an accident, should have his licence taken away and should not be able to use a motor car for the whole period of the war. I mention that because it is an important problem in this connection.
To summarise, there is the question of re-lighting number plates, of licences in the case of people convicted of being under the influence of drink, the question of crossing-lights and of police control and speed. I invite the Minister to give us some precise information, and the results of the inquiries he has promised in the past, so that we shall know whether it is not possible to do away with, at least, the greater part of the deadly menace which is facing us to-day, almost as great as a minor war, represented by the heavy toll upon the road due to the black-out conditions, although not entirely.

7.10 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I intervene early in this important Debate in order that the House may be aware during the subsequent speeches of the views of His Majesty's Government upon the problem which, I need hardly assure hon. Members, has been engaging our earnest and anxious attention ever since the September figures of road accidents came out. We may all be grateful to the hon. Gentleman who has opened this Debate, and I have no reason to complain of the tone or manner in which he did so. In fact, he said one or two things which I was going to say, and with which I entirely agree. One of the first was that this was not a question of motorists versus pedestrians. It is a question of paramount concern to everybody in the country, for there are few people who do not occupy at different times the dual roles of motorist and pedestrian. Owing to various circumstances into which we need not enter in detail, there are this year fewer motorists and

more pedestrians. The hon. Gentleman put forward a question which is fundamental. He said it must be one thing or the other—either there must be an appreciable "let up" of the black-out, or the Government, if they decide that the black-out must remain in substantially the present form, must take such measures as are open to them to deal with the menace of road accidents. I do not think the House would wish me to go at any length into the merits of the blackout as such.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: We would like you to deal with the demerits.

Captain Wallace: I am not really the appropriate Minister to deal with it, but I can say, as the Home Secretary said recently in a speech in Glasgow, that the black-out is not a bureaucratic invention, but is dictated solely by questions of air strategy and is an essential part of the national defence elaborated by the Air Staff. It seems to me, therefore, that until the day comes—and may it come soon—when we shall have destroyed a sufficient number of the German bomber striking force to make the menace of air raids on this country no longer real, we are bound to maintain the black-out in substantially its present form. The House will recognise that we have, during the currency of the black-out, made a considerable number of modifications, all in the direction of mitigating its horrors—and they are horrors—for the railway traveller, the pedestrian, and the driver of the motor vehicle. I think, therefore, that I should best serve the interests of hon. Members in the opening stages of this Debate if I asked the House to agree to the proposition that the black-out must be maintained substantially as at present and deal with the question of road fatalities on the assumption that this must be the case.
The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate gave us the limits of the problem with which we so far are faced. During the period 1st September to 31st December last, that is, the first four months of the war, 4,133 persons died as a result of road accidents, compared with 2,494 in the corresponding period of 1938. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in deprecating any sensational comparisons between the numbers of fatal road accidents and the war casualties which have occurred up to date. We cannot


expect that the sacrifices which we shall have to make in the war will be restricted in future to anything like the present numbers. Moreover it is only right, in trying to achieve a balanced view of this problem, to recognise that even in peace-time modern mechanical transport continues to exact a toll of human life, not only in this country, but in every country where it is largely used. It is curious and rather tragic that, in spite of the laudable efforts of certain organs of the Press and private organisations like the National Safety First Association, which have aroused interest in this problem, the public has for a long time been apathetic. It is only when catastrophe comes and touches us personally as individuals that we realise the full horror and tragedy of death on the roads. I do not think it can be denied, and I do not think anybody will want to deny, that the black-out is the main cause of the increase in road casualties, which has averaged over the last four months 66 per cent. over the comparable pre-war period. If evidence is wanted in support of this fact, the weekly figures of deaths and injuries resulting from road accidents which are compiled for the Metropolitan Police district have shown that they are markedly at their lowest during the times of full moon. If graphs of the figures per week and the phases of the moon are made it will be found that they correspond very closely. To return to the conditions of normal road lighting is in present circumstances out of the question.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Cannot you arrange with the Deity to give us a moon all the time?

Captain Wallace: I wish I could. Any large scale programme of road works for the physical prevention of collisions is rendered equally impossible by considerations of labour, materials and money. We must, therefore, face this problem under war-time conditions from a new angle. The first measures which we adopted when the war broke out took the form of aids to movement. During the last few months a great deal has been done to make motoring in the black-out easier for the motorist. The chief aids to movement were white driving lines, symbols on the carriageway to indicate the approaches to road junctions or pedestrian crossings, the painting of kerbs at road junctions, the demarca-

tion of refuges and roundabouts, the illumination, lowering, and resiting of warning and direction signs. I should like to pay tribute to the action of the local authorities in this matter. We have laid down what our engineers think is best to be done, and the local authorities have acted as our agents. I acknowledge their energy in this respect, and I hope they will continue in well doing in the future.
But I think we must recognise that there comes a point where the provision of more definite aids to movement in the black-out becomes actually a contributory factor to more road accidents, because it permits a general acceleration of motor traffic. I think the experiences of the last four months have made that clear. To take drastic steps at any time to deal with motor traffic or the perambulations of pedestrians is not, in the view of the Government, in itself desirable. We felt that the very large increase in road accidents which shocked this House so much at the end of September might well be due to the novel conditions and that the public would adapt themselves to the black-out as time went on. When in October the increase over pre-war fell from 104 per cent. to 43 per cent. that gave considerable encouragement to this view, and when in November there was a rise in the death rate of only seven throughout the country I felt that that rise might well have been attributed to the shorter days and more unfavourable weather. I am sorry to say that the increase in December, even allowing for still shorter days and the Christmas traffic, has falsified our hopes that the situation was improving, and makes it clear that if we are to reduce the toll of road accidents some further restrictive measures are required.
As the hon. Member opposite has already mentioned, the pedestrian is the chief sufferer, and during these four months, September to December inclusive, 2,657 pedestrians died as the result of road accidents, an increase of 117 per cent. over the corresponding period of last year. If we take account only of adult pedestrians, the percentage figure rises to 148. I am glad to say that the number of children under 15 years of age who were killed during these four months was 293, against 270 in the corresponding four months of last year, representing an increase of only 8½ per cent. Heaven knows


it is nothing to be complacent about or to congratulate ourselves upon, but it is at any rate a good thing to know that the efforts that have been made to instil road sense into these children have evidently borne some fruit.
I have tried to describe very briefly the facts of the situation, and when we start to look round for remedies the position is best described in the words of the Alness Report. That eminent Select Committee of members of another place stated categorically that the human factor is of supreme importance, and I do not think anybody would deny that if all of us were unselfish and behaved with real care there would be very few road accidents. Human nature however being what it is the Government are bound, both by regulation and exhortation, to correct human frailty and to fortify human weakness, but any restrictive measures which we advocate must satisfy two essential conditions. They must be shown, first of all, to be necessary and, secondly, to be practicable. Among the most obvious measures of restriction is the reduction of the speed-limit in built-up areas during black-out hours, a proposal which has been advocated in the only speech which we have so far heard in this Debate.
As long ago as 15th September this proposal was put to me in a Parliamentary Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall). I felt then, and I feel now, that a maximum speed-limit of any kind is open to this objection, that the degree of risk on any particular occasion depends upon many other factors than speed, and it really is not possible for the Minister of Transport, or anybody else, to lay down that any given speed is safe on any given occasion. As I pointed out to the House in answering that question to which I have just referred, it seemed to me that to those people who drive with any regard to their own safety or the safety of others the black-out conditions themselves impose severe restrictions on speed, and in my view they ought to. The fact, however, remains that Parliament in its wisdom decided some time ago that both during daylight and in the conditions of night illumination which prevail in peace-time—very different conditions from those prevailing now—a

maximum speed of 30 miles an hour in built-up areas must be regarded as the general limit; and this decision was reaffirmed, not only without a single dissentient vote, but without a single criticism at all, during the passage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill through this House only six weeks ago. The Government have, therefore, now come to the conclusion that, in view of the persistently high rate of fatal accident figures since the war, and particularly the figures of last month, if 30 miles an hour represents a proper maximum speed limit in built-up areas in peace-time, there is an overwhelming case for a slowing up to 20 miles an hour in the same areas during the black-out.
There are three main objections which, I imagine, can be advanced against this proposal—the effect upon trade and industry, the possible slowing-up of public road passenger transport, and the difficulty of enforcing the new regulation. There may be something in all those objections, but I do not think that any of them outweigh the arguments on the other side. Can it really be contended that 20 miles an hour is too slow for lorries to travel in the dark on those stretches of roads where all are at present restricted in daylight to a maximum speed of 30 miles an hour, and the heavier lorries already to 20?

Mr. Barnes: Do I understand from the Minister's remarks that the 20 miles an hour is to apply only in the built-up areas during the black-out?

Captain Wallace: Yes, only during the black-out hours and in built-up areas—that is, on stretches of roads where there is already a limit of 30 miles an hour applicable all through the 24 hours.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I take it that the lorry already restricted to 20 miles an hour on a country road will still be restricted?

Captain Wallace: Oh, yes; it does not interfere with that restriction on lorries.

Mr. Smith: You have two speeds, 20 miles and 30 miles an hour, in a non-builtup area.

Captain Wallace: The lorry which is restricted to 20 miles an hour is so restricted because of its size and weight, and that applies all the time.

Captain Sir William Brass: May I ask—

Captain Wallace: If my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me, I think it will be better if I make my speech. There will be a reply at the end of the Debate, either by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Home Security, or my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport according to how the Debate goes. [Laughter.] What I mean is, according to whether the speeches turn more upon the Home Security or the Ministry of Transport aspect of this problem. Will anybody who has considered the strain imposed on drivers of passenger transport vehicles suggest that, with the present lighting restrictions, a speed of 20 miles an hour is not sufficient? So far as London is concerned, I am glad to say that I have heard from the London Passenger Transport Board that, in regard to the central area, they do not think it will involve any material alteration in the schedules, although it may result in the retiming of certain of the country services. I still maintain that, in present conditions, in built-up areas, it is sufficient to ask the driver of a public service transport vehicle to drive at a 20-mile-an-hour maximum in the blackout.
In regard to enforcement, we all recognise the difficulty in enforcing the law in relation to all motoring offences in present conditions. I naturally regard the provision of illumination for the registration numbers of cars as an important object to be aimed at as soon as possible. Experiments are going on between my advisers and those of my right hon. Friend, and we are supervised and criticised by the Air Ministry. The result of our observations to date is to show that it is not possible to produce a light which will illuminate the back numbers of cars sufficiently for police purposes, and yet remain within the limits imposed by black-out regulation, at a cost of less than 45s. per fitting. I do not feel it would be justifiable for the Government to insist that every motorist, who feels in many cases that he is getting very nearly to the last straw, should provide himself with this fitting. The Home Secretary and I will keep on pursuing this matter, and I hone that we shall be able to provide some means of lighting these back numbers; but whether the back numbers are lit or whether they are not, it does not

seem to me to be any more difficult for the police to enforce a limit of 20 miles an hour maximum speed under the conditions which I have described than to enforce the existing 30-mile-an-hour limit; in fact, it would not be too much to say that it will be easier.
The principal arguments in favour of the reduced speed limit during black-out hours are, first of all, that the general public in this country is law-abiding. The great majority of motorists will, in the view of the Government, most certainly endeavour to keep within the limit. I believe that a very considerable number of them do not want to go any faster. The general slowing up of traffic which this regulation ought to produce in built-up areas will make things much more difficult for the law-breaker and make easier the detection of the reckless driver. I feel that it would not be too much to ask—and to ask with a considerable prospect of success—that the motoring fraternity as a whole, to which so many of us belong, should be on its honour to observe this 20-mile-an-hour speed limit in built-up areas during the black-out.
The second argument is that the reduced speed limit has the advantage that there is more time for motor driver and pedestrian to avoid an impending collision; and even when a collision does take place the force of the impact will be more than proportionately diminished. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen are no doubt thinking that it is better to be dead than to be seriously injured, but I might say, on the other hand, that it is better to be slightly injured than severely injured. I recognise that there may be people who drive powerful cars with exceptionally good brakes, whose eyesight is particularly keen, and whose reaction-time is exceptionally short, for whom the necessity of driving at no more than 20 miles an hour in built-up areas during the black-out will be irksome.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: Might I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend a question?

Captain Wallace: It will probably be better if I carry on. There will be a reply at the end of the Debate. I do not think that it is open to question that, for the vast majority of motorists, the new speed limit will represent no real hardship and that, to drivers of commercial vehicles, both passenger and


goods, a general slowing down of traffic in the black-out will come as a boon. The Government accordingly propose to introduce a 20-mile-an-hour speed limit during black-out hours in built-up areas. This cannot be done under the Road Traffic Acts, because they do not empower me to fix a different limit of speed at night from that which is in operation during the day. I propose, therefore, to make an Order under the Defence Regulations which will come into force on 1st February. In the light of something which I have to say later, that date will give everybody time to get ready. I am convinced that the imposition of this reduced speed limit in built-up areas during the black-out is an essential move in the campaign to reduce the very serious number of road accidents. I certainly do not claim that it will be a cure for all our ills, but I believe it will be effective in securing an appreciable reduction in road accident figures. I am well aware that there is room for difference of opinion in this matter and I am prepared to admit that the precise effect of the imposition of this speed limit remains to be seen. We shall carefully watch the situation in the light of the investigation of accident figures to which I am going to refer later, and I shall, of course, be ready to review the situation if the need should arise. The whole problem is not static, but requires constant investigation, with the object of finding out the remedy which will best meet the situation at the time.

Sir C. Granville Gibson: Will the limitation to 20 miles an hour apply during the whole of the night when most people are in bed?

Captain Wallace: Yes. I have very carefully considered whether it would be possible to take the limit off at midnight, but everybody is not then in bed, although it might be argued that they ought to be. Certainly, during the winter months, it would be necessary to put the restriction on again in the early hours of the morning when many workpeople are going to work. The result would be four changes of speed limit during the 24 hours, and the Government came to the conclusion that that was not a practical proposition.

Mr. V. Adams: May I ask a question at this point? What about the speed limit in areas which are not built-up? There

may be very serious danger because of motorists rushing along with dimmed headlights.

Captain Wallace: No, I want it to be perfectly clear, as I have said on more than one occasion, that this proposal is solely for built-up areas where the 30 mile an hour speed limit already exists.

Mr. V. Adams: Is nothing going to be done in areas which are not built-up?

Captain Wallace: I would remind my hon. Friend that there will be a reply from another Minister. Now we must turn from the driver of the motor vehicle to the pedestrian and consider whether it would be advisable or wise to couple this restriction which we are going to place upon motorists with some measure of limitation on the movement of pedestrians during the black-out. I hope the House will believe me when I tell them that I think every single proposal which human ingenuity could invent has been brought to my notice during the past four months and has I hope received the amount of attention which it merits. The most obvious measure which will spring to the thoughts of many hon. Gentlemen is to make it an offence to cross any road which is provided with a pedestrian crossing at any place except where the pedestrian crossing happens to be. This presents obvious practical difficulties, not the least of which is the fact that so far it has not been found possible to devise a satisfactory method of distinguishing pedestrian crossings at night so that they can be easily seen by motorists and pedestrians, while at the same time maintaining a satisfactory standard of invisibility from the air. My technical advisers are still working on this problem, but it is one in which I see very great difficulties. The use of pedestrian crossings is, of course, compulsory in Germany and, I think, in some other countries, and the method of enforcement in Germany, which is by the collection of fines on the spot by the police, is not one which would be regarded with favour here.
Another suggestion is that pedestrians should be made to obey traffic lights. At first blush, a rule of that kind has some attraction, but it must be remembered that traffic lights are intended primarily for the control of vehicles, and as a rule allowance has to be made for turning traffic. It is true that at certain


large installations we do provide an "all-red" period, but in the vast majority of cases it is essential, as I think most of us as pedestrians have learnt to our cost, to watch the traffic and not rely too much on the light. Even if it were made a statutory offence 10 cross on the red, that would involve a risk that pedestrians might assume they could safely proceed when the lights changed and might be caught by turning traffic. I do not think we should give them any false sense of security.
Other suggestions which, while excellent in theory, appear to me to have grave practical difficulties, are that it should be an offence to walk on the carriageway where there is a footpath and that penalties should be provided for what in America is called "jay-walking." While the dangers of these practices of walking on the road and of jay-walking cannot be too strongly emphasised, I believe that even the risk of being fined will not deter people from doing it until they can be convinced that it is a very foolhardy action on their part. The same considerations apply to the advice in the Highway Code about walking to the left on pavements. There is something very remarkable about the British public in walking to the left or, rather, in not walking to the left. Tremendous efforts were made before the war in the form of propaganda to try and induce the public to walk on the left. It has great advantages if everybody will walk on the same side, but it is very difficult to persuade the British pedestrian to change his habits. In fact, I was informed by a high official of the London Passenger Transport Board that they have found in some circumstances that the only way to persuade the public to use certain passages as entrances is to label them "Exit only." Anybody who has tried, as a conscientious Minister of Transport should, to walk on the left, even if he is a fairly substantial body, knows that it is a difficult proceeding. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is its virtue?"] The virtue is very simple. If you walk on the left, you face oncoming traffic.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: But what about the footpath? One does not walk on the road.

Captain Wallace: I was talking about the footpath. There is no doubt that the main cause of accidents to pedestrians is that in the present circumstances they are

the only unlighted objects on the road, and pedestrians do not realise how difficult it is for them to judge accurately the distance and speed of vehicles at night or how difficult drivers sometimes find it to see them. While I certainly do not suggest to the House to-night that the black-out in any way frees drivers from the obligation of driving within the limit of their lights and of being able to pull up within the distance in which they can see the road to be clear, all the same, I am confident that there would be fewer accidents if pedestrians would bear in mind the difficulties which drivers of vehicles have in seeing them in the black-out, and try to avoid crossing a road when vehicles are approaching. I should be the last person, speaking with the great responsibility that I have in this matter, to wish to abrogate the proper rights of pedestrians on crossings or anywhere else, but if we really get down to hard facts, the consciousness of having been in the right is a rather poor sort of consolation when one is dead or in hospital, and I would remind all road users whose carelessness causes accidents that the victim is not the only sufferer. To kill a human being, even if it happens to be the fault of that human being, is a terrible thing, and it often leaves its effect on the minds of completely blameless drivers of motor vehicles for years.
Another suggestion concerns the compulsory carrying of torches or wearing something white. There are obvious objections to making these matters compulsory by law. There is the case of the man who cannot afford a torch and the man whose torch goes out a couple of miles from home.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: And he cannot get the battery.

Captain Wallace: And at the moment he cannot get the battery. As far as white clothing is concerned, we can take it as practical men and women that we could not do more than insist by law on the wearing of a white armlet. The idea of everyone being dressed in white after dark is fantastic, and I do not think the wearing of a white arm band would be a complete solution to the problem. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that no single one of these proposals regarding


pedestrians appears to be a suitable subject for legislation, and I should certainly deprecate the creation of a large number of new offences, the sum total of which would smack very strongly of a Hitlerian regime, always repugnant to this people and peculiarly so at the present moment.
Another factor is that it is obvious that the penalties could not in any individual case be severe, and they certainly could not be commensurate with the risk which the pedestrian runs to-day by ignoring these elementary precautions. Therefore, I cannot emphasise too strongly the fact that while we do not want to make the use of pedestrian crossings, the carrying of torches, the wearing of something white, attention to the traffic lights, and the prohibition of walking on the road new statutory offences, we do still believe that they represent rules of conduct which every pedestrian would be well advised to observe as much in his own interest as in the interest of other people.
A number of Members, in all parts of the House, have expressed regret that the detailed analyses of road accidents which have been made from time to time, and which for the year 1937 provided us with extremely valuable data, have not become a permanent feature of our study of the road accident problem. The diversion of staffs—particularly police, and in a secondary degree my own staff—to other work makes it quite impossible for us to attempt a nation-wide analysis on the same scale as was done in 1937; but I am very glad to be able to tell the House that, with the co-operation of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we propose to get the police to undertake a special investigation into the causation of road accidents in several selected areas which have not yet been determined, and I hope that the data which we shall receive from those areas will do something to help us towards a solution of the problem.
The hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate expressed himself as being in favour of propaganda. I believe, myself, that practically all the imprudences and indiscretions which road users can and do commit are the result of carelessness, and not of malice aforethought; and I have always held the view that the toll of road casualties, in peace or in war, can be reduced by the use of judicious propa-

ganda. I am particularly glad to be able to tell the House that the Minister of Information, whom I have consulted on the subject, has agreed to undertake immediately a road-safety campaign, which I hope will include the use of the Press, broadcasting, and the cinemas. I should like to pay my tribute to the very energetic way in which the new Minister of Information has, so to speak, "snapped into" his job. The use of propaganda for the purpose of reducing road casualties has not hitherto been tried by the Government on a large scale, and I think it needs something of an optimist to start a campaign in a field where complaints of the apathy of the public have so often been voiced—and, indeed, where I have just voiced them myself; but I believe that the black-out has now begun to awaken the country to a realisation of the responsibilities of all road users. At any rate, the Minister of Information and I, being both Scots and both optimists, are looking forward to the campaign with intense interest, and considerable hopes of success. I should like to pay a tribute to the private bodies which have undertaken this work in the past, and more particularly to our very good friends the National Safety First Association, with whom my Department will continue to work in close harmony. The Association have told the Government that they are going to inaugurate, in addition to their well-known National Safe Driving Competition, a special scheme of awards for safe driving among drivers in Civil Defence units. We welcome this news, and shall give it our warmest support; and the Minister for Home Security has decided that expenditure by local authorities in entering their drivers for the award will rank for A.R.P. grant.
The hon. Gentleman opposite raised in his speech a number of specific points—the use, or rather lack of use, of petrol by the police, certain schedules of the London Passenger Transport Board, and other matters. I hope that he will allow me to leave a reply to them until they are all picked up together at the end of the Debate. In conclusion, I only want to say this: In commenting on the Parliamentary programme for this week, at least one organ of the Press, of wide circulation, pointed out that our Debates touched very closely on the lives of all of us as individuals—road accidents to-day, shop hours to-


morrow, agriculture and food on Thursday. This, indeed, is a very great human problem; and, in accordance with the answer which I gave just before the Christmas holidays, I have devoted a great deal of thought to it, because I know that while the Minister of Transport cannot exactly be held responsible for road accidents, he is, at any rate, answerable to this House of Commons that every reasonable measure is taken that will reduce them. I do not pretend that what I have been able to say to the House to-night represents a conclusive and permanent answer to the problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I do not put this forward in any spirit of complacency, but I hope that those hon. Gentlemen opposite who appear, by their "Hear, hears," rather to deride our effort will succeed in coming forward this evening themselves with some bigger, better, and more practicable suggestions. At any rate, what we are proposing to do now will, I am absolutely certain, save some lives; and if at the end of four months this tragic toll of road accidents is reduced by 100, by 10, or even by one, I do not think this House will have sat this evening in vain.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I had proposed to devote such time as the House would allow me, and any arguments that I might have, to appealing to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to take some immediate step to put an end to the continuing and increasing scandal of the war on the roads. After the statement of the Minister and the two comprehensive speeches which have been made, and which have covered the ground, I propose to intervene only for a few moments. Speaking for myself, and, I think, for my friends, I can say that we have heard with great satisfaction that the Minister has decided to impose a speed limit of 20 miles an hour during black-out hours in built-up areas. He says that this and the other steps that he has indicated are not a final and permanent solution of all these problems, but I hope that his ambitions are a little higher than the reduction in four months of road accident deaths by 100, by 10, or by one. His ambitions seem to be decreasing.

Captain Wallace: I was only replying to what was said by the hon. Member opposite.

Mr. White: At all events, we welcome this proposal as a positive and practical step, which, we feel confident, will have some effect upon this disastrous situation. Some observations have been made of a somewhat speculative character during the evening as to the apathy which prevails, and has prevailed in the past, with regard to road accidents. One or two things have been said which establish a common ground for this Debate, and that is, that this question ought not to be discussed and considered as a question of motorists versus pedestrians. That seems to be important. If I may dwell for a moment on the general question of the attitude of the public towards this appalling death-rate upon the roads, I have been driven reluctantly to the conclusion that, in general, people are not very much concerned with other people who are killed provided it does not come too near to themselves. Probably the reason for the attitude of the public is that, whether we are motorists or pedestrians, we are inclined to regard ourselves as exceptions to the rule both as regards risk and, perhaps to some extent, responsibility.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he proposed this step, with which, I think, the House approves, and he went on to say something with regard to enforcement. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman put his finger on the spot when he said that a mere fine is not sufficient to prevent either pedestrians or motorists from breaking the law. Of course it is not enough. If the fear of death and accident is not enough to make them observe the law, surely a fine of a pound or two is no good at all. Success depends upon motorists and pedestrians realising that there is a common right in the use of the road, and a common responsibility upon everyone to see that the regulations are in fact carried out.
I pass straight away to couple with that observation what the Minister said with regard to propaganda. I am certain, from my own observations, that pedestrians on the road at this time, taking them by and large, are unaware of the fact that they cannot be seen until they are actually within the beam of a very attenuated lamp. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman might confer with his friend the Minister of Information on this point. I think that much good could be obtained if he were to arrange for a


few short and snappy sentences to be interpolated in broadcasting programmes from time to time, pointing out to pedestrians the exact position which prevails and the risks they run from the fact that they are not visible, and pointing out that in present conditions it is extraordinarily difficult to judge how far a car is away and at what speed it is travelling. I hope that that suggestion may receive some consideration in the various steps of propaganda which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has in view.
I want to refer to a subject raised by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), which is always received in this House with some hilarity, and the Minister, in the course of his long, comprehensive, and valuable survey of the whole of this subject did not refer to it. Perhaps it is a tit-bit to be left over to his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, or his right hon. Friend, whichever of them replies. I refer to the subject of the influence of intoxicants upon road accidents. That is not a matter to be dismissed lightly at all. In 1936 the subject came before this House, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's predecessor appointed a committee of the British Medical Association, when various eminent authorities considered the matter in all its aspects and made some practical suggestions, and important deductions were made from the evidence which they had considered. I do not think that that is a matter which, although it is generally received with some mild hilarity in this House, ought to escape very serious attention during the consideration of this problem.
I hope and believe that the step which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken will have the important effect of bringing increased sense of responsibility to motorists and will lead to a general tightening-up of caution in driving through the black-out hours, and will also lead to a general slowing-down of traffic and greater care in the whole of the urban areas in this country. That is probably the most important effect which will come from it, and I certainly hope that that will be the case. May I make a suggestion? I do not know whether it will be considered outrageous, but some of the worst offenders now speeding on the roads, and who show

little consideration for anybody at all, are people who have some priority sign upon their windscreen. They appear to go "hell for leather" without regard to safety or anything else. Some of these priority signs seem to be entitled to very little consideration at all. But there it is. That is an observation which, I hope, may receive some consideration, and I trust that it may find sonic place in a word of warning and caution in whatever propaganda steps are taken or any information which the Minister may give.
There is one other point which might receive a little more consideration. Could there not be a more careful distribution of police in actual danger spots? One often sees a constable or an officer on duty in some place where there appears to be little necessity for him. To those who have not studied the matter specially and have no special knowledge, the opinion may not be worth very much, but one often sees a dangerous spot in one's locality. It may be known generally as "Crash corner," or something of that kind, and if there was a careful watch made or special attention given at such points, it would lead to a diminution in the number of accidents. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in speaking of the terrible increase in the casualties since the black-out, referred to the 4,123 deaths which had occurred since the war began. It is a terrible thing, but it is not enough to blame this on to the black-out, as my hon. Friend has said. There were over 6,500 deaths on the roads in 1938, which indeed is appalling. I wish to approve of the positive steps which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to take to-night, and I hope that he will keep this matter under daily observation. If it is not enough, I feel that the opinion of the country will insist upon something more. The creating of a public consciousness against what is happening on the roads ought to be more successful even than formal regulations.

8.9 p.m.

Sir W. Brass: I am very disappointed with the speech which has been made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Transport. He disappointed me, to start with, by saying that he did not consider any alteration in the black-out was necessary. He is faced with a very difficult problem indeed when 1,155 people were killed in December, and he feels that he cannot come down


to the House of Commons without saying something, and he has taken what I consider to be the easiest course. I do not think it will do the slightest good. Not only that, but it is going to be a real danger. I do not know whether my right hon. and gallant Friend drives very much at night, but if he does, I am going to ask him whether he ever turns on his dash-lamp light in order to see his speedometer. If he does, he cannot see anything else. That is why I say that the new rule that he is going to bring in will not be a public benefit but a public menace and danger. If he is going to keep to the 20-mile limit, as he suggests DOW, he will have to have his speedometer light on in order to see that he is keeping to the 20 miles an hour. When one drives at night, as I do very often, I always have my dash-lamp out because when the light is on I cannot see ahead. If I have to look at the speedometer, in future I shall not be able to see the road. But I shall not do that; I shall drive as I do to-day.
There is another reason why I object to what my right hon. and gallant Friend has said and proposed. The speed limit is absolutely unenforceable in the dark. I want to explain to him—though perhaps he knows—how speed limits are enforced in this country. There are two ways which are generally practised by the Metropolitan Police. One way is to tail a vehicle and look at the speedometer of the following vehicle. This is impossible in the dark because the light of the vehicle behind will not shine on the vehicle in front, and therefore it cannot get close enough to see whether the speed limit is being exceeded. There is another way of doing it, and that is to set three people on the path, two in plain clothes and one in uniform. The two in plain clothes stand 220 yards apart, and when a vehicle plsses the first man flashes a torch and starts his watch. The second man also starts his watch, and when the car gets 220 yards beyond him he flashes his torch for the third policeman, in uniform, to stop his watch and the car. That is impossible in the dark, because the flashing of torches is not allowed. Consequently it is impossible to enforce a speed limit. My right hon. and gallant Friend said that this speed limit was going to be enforced only in built-up areas. As the lamps are out in these areas, how can anybody who is driving know whether

it is a built-up area or not? In that way my right hon. and gallant Friend will find it extremely difficult to apply the suggestions that he has made. I will tell you how the police can try to enforce the limit, and how we know they will if they get the opportunity. It will be by trying to enforce the 20 miles an hour limit in a built-up area on a moonlit night, when it is perfectly safe to go more than 20 miles an hour.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: It is not safe on a moonlit night to go 30 miles an hour in a built-up area?

Sir W. Brass: It is in some places. The real reason that I object to what my right hon. and gallant Friend has done, and what is going to have no effect at all on road accidents, is this: I think there is a great opportunity of really looking at this problem from a wide angle. Every time there is an accident the driver is asked how it happened, and almost invariably he says that he did not see the man or the woman. The real reason, however, that accidents occur is because of the darkness, and my right hon. and gallant Friend was perfectly right when he said that it varied with the phases of the moon. I want to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to consider whether this intense black-out in London and our other big cities is necessary. Why are we doing it? I saw in a newspaper the other day a list of towns in Germany, Austria, and Czecho-Slovakia which had been visited by our aeroplanes. Everybody in the House no doubt read about that wonderful exploit of our men and the description of the different towns. Some had bright lighting, some dimmed, and some were completely blacked out. If our bombers can go over these different places and can describe what they saw, there is no reason to suppose that German bombers should not be able to come to London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, or any other of the towns which have been blacked out. Are we going to keep this complete blackout and allow 1455 people to be killed in a month in order to be able to prevent, as we think, the bombing of London and various other big cities? I do not believe that will stop it, if that kind of bombing is to take place.
There are two kinds of bombing. One, which up to the present has never been attempted during the whole of the war in


any other country, is indiscriminate bombing at night of the civil population. Practically all the bombing which has been done up to the present in the war has been done in daylight, and the reason for it is quite simple. It is because you cannot bomb accurately at night. If bombing takes place at night, it will be indiscriminate, in order to create chaos and affect the morale of the people, and I do not believe that is going to happen. If we can divide it into these two categories, we shall see the relative value of the black-out as such, and I suggest that what we should do is to realise that this whole problem is a question of light. The light at present allowed us is not sufficient for getting about in built-up areas and other parts of the country. I would suggest that my right hon. and gallant Friend should look at it from another angle and consider whether he cannot give better lights to the road vehicles themselves. I am not suggesting an increase in the ordinary lights of a town, because I understand from the Air Force that if you have a higher intensity of light, it makes a glow in the sky which can be seen from far away. As we cannot switch off the lights, as in some countries, we must have a certain low intensity of light as a permanency. I suggest to my right hon. and gallant Friend that if he wants to reduce the number of accidents, he should increase the amount of light available for vehicles themselves. We shall soon know whether there is a big air raid or not. It is not a question of one or two machines. If we are to have a big air raid in which hundreds of machines will take part, we shall know it fast enough, and then all these lights would be put out; no one would be allowed to drive after an air-raid warning had been given. That is a much better way of doing it than the silly 20 miles speed limit.
I want my right hon. and gallant Friend to understand one thing. At the present time the regulations say that you can have your mask on one side or the other. I think that is silly. You should have it decided which side, or preferably I think it should be on both sides. There can be no reason why a motorist should not be allowed to have two masks. If anybody says that there would be too much light, I would point out that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in-

creased the horse-power tax to 25s. and the Secretary for Mines has restricted the amount of petrol, this year and last year are going to be quite different. There is about a quarter the number of vehicles on the roads now, and if you allow two lights, we shall only have half the amount of light that we had last year. I think you must have two lights on vehicles, because it is very deceptive to pedestrians if you have only one. You want a bright light which can be turned out when an air-raid warning comes along. That is an important point.
The question which has to be decided is the question of bombing, whether we are going to play Hitler's game by having a complete black-out the whole of the time in order to prevent something which, if he decided upon it, he could do perfectly well whether you have a black-out or not, and that is to bomb the big cities of this country by night indiscriminately. We have to decide whether we are going to continue the black-out and continue the number of deaths on the roads, or whether we are going to allow vehicles a little more light and in that way save a large number of deaths on the roads. That is an important angle from which I suggest this problem should be viewed. If the Germans are coming over to this country to bomb any particular objective, I believe they will come in the day time, because they will not be able to hit their objective at night. If they want to bomb big towns, they will come either in the day or in the night, and the black-out will not make the slightest difference. If my right hon. and gallant Friend thinks that by keeping the blackout he is going to prevent promiscuous bombing, he is mistaken, and we shall continue to have a large number of accidents on the roads.
In Holland there has been an invention of what is called the Bikker light. It is a controlled beam projected from a vehicle, and you can see an ordinary pedestrian at about 50paces. The present Home Office mask will show only a pedestrian's feet at 19 paces. I think experiment should be made with this light. I would also ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to make experiments with it on pedestrian crossings. This particular light is being used in Holland a great deal, on the canals and in the streets. It is an invisible beam from the air, but it lights up the object upon which


it is trained. Some experiments have been made with it at Oxford, and they have been very pleased with them. They have Bikker beacons on the roads which give direction to the traffic. I suggest that they might be put upon some pedestrian crossings and possibly fitted to cars in place of the mask. But before I give my blessing to it, I want to see experiments to find out whether this particular invention is better than the masks. Before putting on the speed limit, I think all these things should be taken into account by my right hon. and gallant Friend.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) has made a very interesting speech and has also made a vigorous attack upon his right hon. and gallant Friend. I do not share his point of view. I think that the problem now before the House is larger than the question of lighting. The announcement which the Minister of Transport has made is an important one and will be widely welcomed in all parts of the country to-night. It would be a mistake if we thought that the problem we are considering is one which is merely concerned with the conditions on the roads created by the war. This problem has been discussed in this House from time to time for a long period, and when we recollect that during the past 20 years no fewer than 100,000 men, women and children have lost their lives on our roads and that the casualties in terms of injured have been between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000, it is obvious that this is a much bigger problem than accidents arising from the black-out.
It is astonishing the complacency, both public and official, in regard to this heavy sacrifice of life. It may be that the accidents are not dramatic enough. We make a great deal of fuss when we hear of a railway or mining accident. Here we have a continuous sacrifice, which does demand the urgent attention not only of the public but of the Government also. Much as one is tempted this evening to discuss only the problem of the black-out, I cannot help recalling the importance of there being some long-term programme and policy in regard to this road accident problem. In the "Times" certain correspondents have been urging that there should be a road policy and that not only

should roads be improved, but that we should also construct, even during the war, big motor highways. I doubt very much whether, in the conditions of war, a programme of that kind could be embarked upon, but it seems to me that certain of the proposals which were being urged before the war began are still important in present circumstances. Among those proposals are that there should be a more even administration of the law in regard to motoring offences, that there should be severer penalties for recklessness and drunkenness on the road, and that there should be a stringent control over speed in built-up areas.
It is not my intention to refer at any length to the figures that were given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) and the Minister of Transport, but it is obvious that this problem is increasing and not diminishing in perplexity, and that something of a far-reaching character must be done if this tragedy is to be lessened. An analysis of the figures reveals that the safety of pedestrians is very much involved. Analysis reveals also that the greater number of accidents happen in darkness and that in daylight the figures are relatively small. I agree with my hon. Friend that the black-out is not the only explanation, because in certain districts where the black-out operates the number of deaths has not increased because of the precautions that have been taken locally. We should note, moreover, the vast number of accidents which have involved terrible injuries to pedestrians. The figures are appalling. My hon. Friend estimated that for December the figures of those injured were as high as 30,000. It has been calculated that during the first two months of the blackout, if the statistics were in the same proportions as last year, no fewer than 80,000 persons were injured, of whom 18,000 seriously. The horror of those figures will be appreciated if we remember that there are many fewer vehicles on the roads.
I must confess that I had feared that Government Departments were getting a little complacent about this problem. It is true that since the war began many experiments and practical suggestions have been made by Government Departments, and the Minister of Transport has indicated a number of things which his Department has done. During the last


two months, I have at Question time drawn attention to one or two things, and the replies I have received have indicated no inclination by the Government to take particularly vigorous action. I have asked, for instance, about the very treacherous condition of the roads in certain industrial towns in the North. In those towns there are in Winter streets that are icy, and sometimes covered with snow; the workers there go out in the darkness in the early morning and return from the mills at night in darkness also. I have asked that for safety of workers, the industrial towns should be particularly considered in the matter of lighting. There has seemed to be no urgency on the part of the Home Office to find a solution of that difficulty, but at last some form of lighting has been found, although we are told that many of the local authorities cannot face the financial problem involved in installing this new lighting.
In a number of Questions I have urged that a greater supply of torches and batteries should be made available to the general public. There is still a considerable shortage of batteries. It is useless to pretend that torches are not of importance to pedestrians during the black-out. Torches are of great importance in avoiding obstacles, maintaining one's place on the footway, and keeping off the roads; and it seems a most elementary precaution that, in view of the exceptional conditions of the streets, large numbers of torches should be available. I asked that the Government should see that such a supply exists, but even to this day, in great parts of the country, batteries can scarcely be purchased.
As a lay person, I do not pretend to be able to pass judgment as to whether the degree of blackness which exists in our streets at the present time is or is not essential to national security. It may be that we are to some extent expert-ridden in this matter. Certainly, there are many who feel that, in view of experiments elsewhere, a better balance might be struck in order to meet the needs of the roads. Possibly the present degree of blackness is a necessity of defence, but in many of the towns of belligerent countries on the Continent they are able to meet the conditions of black-out with less extreme measures than operate in this country.
I welcome the Minister's announcement regarding the reduction of the speed limit in built-up areas during the black-out hours. Of course, numerous reasons can be advanced as to why the speed limit should remain what it is now, and there are always practical difficulties in any proposal that may be made from time to time for dealing with this problem; but I think the Minister's proposal has the merit of bringing this question under the tighter control of the police. It will facilitate the use of the roads by pedestrians. It will help in securing that the driver of a car will be able to pull up within the range of his own light vision. It will help the police to detect the reckless driver more easily than is possible at present. Too much, I think, has been made of the argument that street accidents are a matter for the education of the pedestrian only. It must be recognised that the conditions under which the roads are used by the pedestrian have been made immensely more difficult as a result of the black-out.
I should like to add that there ought to be a stricter enforcement of the law by the police and magistrates in respect of road offences. Reference has been made to cases of drunkenness on the part of some persons driving cars, and the easy way in which such people are frequently allowed to escape punishment. Such irresponsibility and recklessness on the road ought to be severely punished. One welcomes the suggestions which have been made about a wider "safety first" propaganda. I hope too, that the experiments which are being made regarding the illumination of number plates will speedily result in a simple and cheap method of making the identity of cars more obvious than is the case at present.
There are one or two other small suggestions which I hope the Minister will examine. For instance, even if some good method of lighting crossways has not yet been discovered, at least the crossway posts should be painted with luminous paint. I also suggest that, as far as possible, at cross-roads there should be all-red periods to enable pedestrians to cross. Greater use might also be made of the St. Andrew's Cross light and of "cat's eyes" lamps to help drivers in particularly dark sections of the roads. I am glad that the Minister is not taking a complacent view of the situation. It is


not enough for us to hope that, with the lengthening clays and the smaller number of cars on the road, this slaughter will be reduced. Rather, it seems to me, should we make up our minds that something must be done at once to end this fearful tragedy and I sincerely hope the Government will persevere in their efforts to bring this dreadful scandal of the slaughter of the roads to an end.

8.44 p.m.

Viscount Cranborne: I do not wish to take up much of the time of the House, for this question is a matter of urgent public importance, and many Members who have far more practical knowledge of it than I have wish to take part in the Debate. I intervene to ask one question which is, I suggest, fundamental, and I hope it will be possible for the Minister who replies to answer it. The Minister of Transport, in his most charming and persuasive speech, seemed to me to have completely hamstrung this Debate by one of his earlier sentences. He said, as I understood, that it had been decided by the Government's expert advisers that the black-out was essential, and, therefore, he thought the House would wish to proceed on that assumption. I cannot accept that limitation of the Debate. We are always being told nowadays that experts say this or that and that we in the House of Commons must be good boys and accept their views. I have no confidence in experts at all. I think that frequently they are entirely wrong. I give one example. In the last war, so I have read, it was the view of the Admiralty experts that convoys were a mistake and would increase the submarine danger. The Government at first accepted the view of the experts and decided against convoys. But more and more ships were sunk. Eventually, they decided to override the experts, arid they found, not that the danger was Increased by the convoy system, but that it was the solution of the problem.
On this occasion I suggest that the House has a right to know why the experts think the black-out essential. I do not see why we should not be told. Presumably the Germans know these facts already. Their aeroplanes have flown here, and they know what the position is. As I understand it, there are two possibilities. One is that the black-out entirely conceals all towns and industrial districts so that enemy aircraft do not

know, when they come over at night, whether they are over a city or over the open countryside. That assumption is, in an extreme degree, improbable. We all know how our own aeroplanes have flown at night over Germany—magnificent flights which have earned all our admiration—and I notice that in the reports it is always stated that they reached their objectives though very often they have been flying at night through hail, snow, and fog. Presumably, that is also true of the Germans. Therefore, I think we may conclude that the black-out does not entirely conceal the great cities. On the other hand, there is another, and I think, more probable suggestion, that the blackout, while it does not conceal those places, makes it impossible for airmen to aim at definite objectives. That is very probable. If that is true, however, while it is a strong argument for maintaining the black-out in built-up areas and great cities, it is no argument for having a black-out in country districts where there are no definite objectives. If it were possible to limit the black-out to purely urban districts and places where there are real reasons for it in order to protect the population, it would make an enormous difference not only to the safety of the people but to their general convenience at this very difficult time. As one who lives a certain amount in the country, some way from London, I cannot help thinking that it is ludicrous that we should be expected to crawl like snails along country roads and lanes which are far from any military objective. I cannot believe that to be necessary.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that people who live in the country can see as well in the dark as with the light? When I was a lad I used to be able to go for miles in the dark.

Viscount Cranborne: That has not been my experience. I would like the hon. Member to try to drive a car through the black-out in the country. He will not find it so easy. The Air Ministry, who, presumably, are mainly responsible for these regulations, are clearly right to put forward the most complete scheme they can devise. But surely it is for us in this House to weigh the considerations for or against that scheme and to reach a balanced conclusion. That, I think, is the issue with which we are faced in this important Debate to-night.
The proposals put forward by the Minister of Transport will, I think, he generally welcomed. I am certain that a 20-mile limit in built-up areas during the black-out is a very good plan. It is a fast enough speed for any person to drive at in such circumstances. Surely, no one should want to go faster. But surely the Minister will be the first to recognise that such a proposal will not seriously dinimish the number of casualties. It may make some difference, but not an essential difference. I believe that the only way that that can be done is by the relaxation of the black-out, and I suggest this should be considered by the Government and this House, at any rate for the country districts.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I think there has been too much of an endeavour to antagonise one section of the public against another. Whatever our views are regarding the responsibility of accidents, and the practical steps to be taken for their elimination, everyone is bound to admit that the problem is one of first-rate importance. No one can look at the accident figures without feeling that every possible step not only should, but must, be taken to make roads safer for all sections of the public. If one looks at the figures—and many figures have been bandied about to-night in the course of this Debate—I think it is fair to say that the black-out has been responsible for the addition of 1,639 deaths which have taken place during the months of darkness, in the four months of the war. One cannot look at these figures with complacency, and while one does not wish to draw any deductions in comparison between the losses up to now in the war, nevertheless it is as well because the Ministry of Transport, since the war, has dropped any form of investigation into the number of injured people and only looked at the fatal accidents.
If we take the percentage increase of these accidents in that four months and relate it by the same percentage to injuries, we get no less than a figure of 133,430, and if we take the Government's estimate that this war is going to last for three years, the killed and injured during that period, if these figures remain, will equal a total of no less than 427,000 people. That is a stupendous figure, for

the deaths alone will exceed 40,000 persons, or more than a total army corps. That, I think, represents a very serious problem for the Government. And what concrete proposals are being made for dealing with this question? The Minister has told us to-night, in spite of the verbiage with which he surrounded his statement, that in fact the only thing the Government contemplate doing was on 1st February to institute a speed limit of 20 miles per hour. I venture to say that that will be no cure for the accidents taking place in the urban areas to-day.
The experienced person who has any knowledge of traffic movement will see that the general tendency of fixing a speed limit of 20 miles per hour will result in what is called "bunching" traffic on the roads. There will be congestion and the pedestrian will not get across the road. He will take risks far more than to-day and in my opinion the accidents will be higher. I suggest that the fixing of a speed limit is ill-founded. The fact is that at road junctions, and in congested districts, the speed to-day is far less than 20 miles per hour, and that the very exigency of traffic limits the speed of vehicles. I venture to say that if we have a debate in four months' time the Minister will get up and say that the fatal accidents have fallen, and he will attribute this to the speed limit instituted by the Government, whereas in fact, after November and December in particular, the black-out period has coincided with the "knocking-off" of the work-people. That is an important point. It is the Deity who gives us the length of light. It is no use the Minister coming to us with this suggestion because it will be the light period which will contribute to the reduction in road accidents.
I had intended raising many points, but since leaving this House for a few minutes I have had the advantage of talking to a gentleman who lives most: of his life in the air. One of the most constructive points I would suggest to the Government is an easement of the black-out conditions. In discussing this question with that very gallant gentleman, when I suggested to him some system of a central switch which could put out the lights immediately as a solution of the problem, he said, "I hope you visualise that if people are out in a light period with a sudden black-out, and bombs falling,


what is going to be the result for five minutes with people more or less blind? "I saw the force of that argument put to me by a practical person. The Minister for Home Security has been telling us that he has agreed to a system which I believe is called "comfort lighting." I do not know what it means, but some call it "star-lighting." We have had it tried, here and there, but there is no general uniformity.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): indicated dissent.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: But I am sure I am right. Can the right hon. Gentleman say that his system is general in the country?

Sir J. Anderson: No, it is being introduced as quickly as appliances can be used.

Mr. Smith: I am not saying that, but in fact it is not uniform, and I think the House will be with me when I make that statement. What I want the right hon. Gentleman to do is to cut out of his vocabulary the word "may" and substitute the word "shall." There is too much of the permissive with the local authorities to-day, and not enough of the obligatory. The right hon. Gentleman has agreed to a system of lighting, and it should be instituted without delay. It should be compulsory upon all local authorities to institute it, and an arbitrary date should be fixed in which all lighting should come into being. It seems to me that that is a proper way to get some system of uniformity of lighting in the country as a whole.
Another point is with regard to the Heath Robinson lamp. I give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for meeting the views of a deputation and to agreeing to public service vehicles carrying two headlamps. Why cannot this be applied to the commercial driver as well? He is on the road day and night hauling goods from one end of the country to the other with a system of lighting that is chaotic. Why should these lights be limited to omnibuses? They are not of the Heath Robinson type but of the type which show a downward as well as a lateral light. Most hon. Members who have spoken have talked about the luminosity of the light and the possibility of seeing a pedes-

trian at the end of it. Under the present system of lighting there is a black area right in front of the vehicle, and I suggest that if investigations were made, it would be found that that is where the accidents occur and not in the area of the light itself. If the right hon. Gentleman will consult the traffic authorities of Birmingham, for instance, he will no doubt be told that many of the accidents there are due to a pedestrian stepping off the kerb too early or trying to cross in the black portion of the car's light and to the motorist striking him without seeing him. In addition to a lateral light, there ought to be a downward light at the foot of the reflector which will illuminate the area immediately in front of the car. That will be one of the most effective things to eliminate accidents.
I would ask again as a constructive suggestion that all kerbs and corners should be painted white and kept white; it is all very well painting them to-day and leaving them, for a little shower of rain or snow covers them up and they are useless. The tendency, indeed, the regulation, when the first Heath Robinson light was instituted, was to carry the light on the off-side, with the result that cars going both ways search for the centre white line, the vehicles are brought towards the crown of the road, and many accidents result. If the right hon. Gentleman would not only leave the centre white line, but see that the corners and kerbs are properly painted and kept painted, he would leave a fair way in the road between two sets of lines, the kerb and the central white line. Then again, with regard to trailers, why should not both the trailer and the drawing vehicle be painted fore and aft as a solo vehicle has to be, and why should not the second vehicle be compelled to carry white lights? I have stood on an island and seen a vehicle go by drawing a trailer, but not knowing the trailer was there, I have stepped off into it. That could have been avoided if the trailer had been carrying position lights.
Many hon. Members seem to take the view that the pedestrian is never wrong and that the motorist is always wrong. If we have to deal with the pedestrian, why must we deal with him from the point of view of penalties we ought to impose upon him if he does or does not


do certain things? A simple way of dealing with this aspect of the problem is to make pedestrian crossings a continuation of the footpath. That would give the pedestrian the right that he has on the footpath. Instead of the steel studs on the crossings, which are obliterated with the first mud, I suggest that the crossings should be marked with "cat's-eye" studs which take up the reflected light of vehicles. I suggest also that the beacons should be illuminated. I appreciate that some are metal, because when they were glass all sorts of things happened to them, but surely it is not beyond the ingenuity of the so-called experts to see that a small amber traffic light is placed somewhere near the bulb. That will indicate to the pedestrian where the crossings are and to the driver that there are likely to be pedestrians on them. If the crossings are not sufficient in number, others should be put in. These things having been done, the pedestrian should be notified that if he has an accident at any other place than on a crossing, he will have no right in law to compensation. That will deal with the question in a simple way without causing injustice to the pedestrian. In this way the pedestrian will have the full rights of the extended footpath in crossing the road, and if he will only take the trouble to walk a few yards to the crossing instead of walking obliquely across the road, he will get to his destination safely.
It is a remarkable fact that accidents to cyclists have been reduced. I attribute that to this House taking its courage in its hands and insisting on rear lights for bicycles. Bicycles can now be seen from the rear as well as from the front. All I suggest now is that the rear lights should be in a fixed position on one side or the other of the rear wheel or at the rear of the wheel, and that it should be a regulation height from the ground. That would help not only the cyclists, but road users as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the deputation that I took to him in September regarding the white St. Andrew's cross. I give the right hon. Gentleman full measure of praise for adopting the white St. Andrew's cross. The argument was that in a blackout a driver was apt to take the red light, a foot off the ground, which was displayed on every road obstruction for the rear light of another car, but that if there was a white St. Andrew's cross he would, know-

ing that he must keep to the left of a white light, automatically keep to the left. But the white St. Andrew's cross is not in general use. The regulation was issued in either September or October, but with the permissive "may" instead of "shall," and the local authorities or the Minister himself ought to institute the white St. Andrew's cross as a traffic sign, so that all drivers will know that it is their business to keep to the left at those points.
I have another suggestion to make to which I attach a good deal of importance. If Summer-time could be reintroduced as early as possible, it would give us another hour of daylight at a time when work-people are "knocking off" and when there is the peak load of traffic. Six o'clock immediately becomes seven o'clock, and we get the extra hour's daylight. It is no answer to say that we shall lose the hour's daylight next morning, because there are not the number of people on the roads in the morning that there are at six o'clock in the evening. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that the Ministry of Transport really are going to consider the question of propaganda. What does that postulate? That in the past they have not considered it. In 1937 every type of road accident came under investigation. Everybody must have known that with the institution of the black-out after war had started the tendency would be for accidents to go on, and yet the Minister thinks this is a good time to drop the investigation into nonfatal accidents. Surely we ought to continue the investigation now to find out what are the real causes of accidents during the black-out.
Have the Ministry of Transport looked at the figures of the vehicles on the road which are responsible for accidents, because they are very remarkable? On 30th November, 1939, there were 254,675 fewer vehicles on the road than there were prior to that date. The number of motor cars decreased by 65,800; tramcars and hackney carriages by 9,631; goods vehicles by 12,877 but the remarkable thing is that in the case of those that were trade licensed—that trade licence is exempted—the figures rose from 94,552 to 119,528, an increase of 24,976. How many of the accidents are revealed there? A certain hundred—or thousand, as the case may be—of taxi cabs were taken off the road and would no longer be registered. They


would be in those figures. They took away the driver, the old man who had been getting his living with his cab and whom they could have employed for £3 a week, and put him on public assistance, and put volunteer women drivers on to the cabs. I say that is wrong—though I am not saying that because they are women. I should like to know what is the proportion of accidents that have taken place in connection with that figure.
If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures of accidents he will see that in the case of public-service vehicles they were 9 per cent. pre-black-out and that they have risen to 14 per cent. In the case of lorries and vans they were 20.7 per cent., and they have fallen to 18 per cent.; motor cars, 30.8 per cent., and they have gone up to 36; motor cycles, 16, and the figure is still 16—no change; and pedal cycles 20.6, and they have fallen to 16 per cent. The astounding thing is that in the case of the London Passenger Transport Board they have had fewer accidents in the black-out because, I suggest, their vehicles have had somewhat better lighting than the ordinary vehicles, but that the fatal accidents have gone up. I suggest that that rise in fatal accidents has come about through that zone of black immediately in front of an omnibus. People are stepping into that zone of blackness, in which the driver cannot see the person and in which that person cannot see the omnibus.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his decision to have two headlights instead of the one headlight. People have been used to seeing two headlights on a vehicle. I wonder how many accidents have taken place through people stepping into the side of an omnibus on a dark night because the lamp has been on the other side. I believe there will be a reduction of accidents following the institution of the two headlights, and I beg the right lion. Gentleman to see that the two headlights shall be carried by all commercial vehicles, indeed, by all vehicles if it comes to, hat. As one who has driven a car for 40 years, I confess that the black-out conditions have beaten me. I have sold the car and am now a pedestrian. I feel that it is not safe for me to drive with the type of lighting which is allowed, and I say that as one who has a knowledge of almost every street in the Greater London area. If I have had to give up driving, the House

may get some idea of the feelings of the men who have to drive for a living day in and day out, men who understand their business, men who are told that if there is an air-raid warning, their first business must be to switch out all additional lights and who will do it.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to do away with the chaotic system of lighting on country roads, especially the lighting of commercial vehicles. It is not for me to tell the House the tricks that are tried to get better lighting. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow a downward glare in the immediate front of a vehicle, and two headlights, that will allow of some vision ahead, and he will be doing a good turn to all drivers, who, after all, have a pretty rotten job at this time to get a living and to carry goods about the country. Let the House remember that if anything does happen to the railways, the second line of defence is the transport system of the roads, and we ought to look at it from that angle.
I make a plea for more propaganda. There are certain organisations which would be ready to assist. I am senior vice-chairman of the National Safety First Association, and have been so for some years, and I have made one or two constructive suggestions, but always there seems to have been an attitude on the part of the Ministry that the Association were a more or less interfering body, not the sort of organisation which the Ministry would wish to associate with, and yet I venture to suggest that that Association has done as much work by propaganda, in the shops and on the roads, as any voluntary body in this country. Consider what the Royal Commission on Transport said in 1929—that
the most hopeful method of inducing pedestrians to exercise greater caution is by means of educational propaganda. This is being carried out with marked success by the National Safety First Association. In our opinion the Association should receive much greater recognition and support. Its educational work in the schools has been particularly valuable.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) contributed to that recommendation as a member of that commission. Then the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, on which I have had the honour to sit since 1924, has expressed itself in this matter. May I say just here that I could never understand why, on the advent of war, this committee should


be put out of being. It has sat since 1924, but the view is now taken that it can perform no useful function. It seems unwise to act in that way in regard to this committee, and to shut down its work. In this committee, we say:
Our consideration of the problem of street accidents leads us to believe that the principal means of reducing their number lies in educating the public, that is, drivers as well as pedestrians. What is wanted, in our opinion, is extensive and sustained propaganda work, such as is done for political purposes or the sale of commodities, and funds should be provided to enable the intensive campaign which the gravity of the present position calls for to be conducted for education and warning to all classes of road user.
I make a special plea to the right hon. Gentleman, that he should be seized of that recommendation, which was made by people who are representative of all types of traffic user and of the people who supply the needs of traffic users. Finally, I would mention the Departmental Committee on Road Safety among Schoolchildren. It said:
The National Safety First Association has been prominent in bringing to the notice of local education authorities, teachers and also the general public not only the facts of the situation in regard to road accidents, but also means and suggestions for dealing with the problem. In our opinion the association should receive the fullest possible recognition and support.
They are three important bodies that have been set up by the Government to go into the question. All are unanimous, yet the Minister to-night has told us that, from now onwards, we are to make a serious investigation, and that we are to take two or three simple cases. On the face of it that is not good enough. Are you to go to Cardiganshire where accidents have fallen, or to Birmingham where they have gone up by 81 per cent., or to Glasgow where they have trebled themselves? Are you coming to London? How are you going to make this investigation general? There is only one way, and that is to take a general survey of all accidents and to find the degree of culpability, whether in regard to the driver, the road, the system of traffic lighting, the system of road lighting or the pedestrians, as well as all that goes to make up the total of accidents in any place in Great Britain. That is the only feasible way of dealing with the problem.
I make another plea to the right hon. Gentleman. He has only to leave this

House and go to the Vauxhall crossing by Vauxhall Bridge, or, in fact, to any of the great junctions in London, and he will find that the important work of traffic regulation has, in general, been taken out of the hands of the police and put in charge of the "specials." These men are doing wonderful work, but they have not the knowledge and experience, or, frankly, the authority, that is possessed by the regular policemen. No one will deny that, in the country as a whole, the regular police are one of the most respected bodies by all users of the road, and more so probably than in any other country in the world. While it may be necessary to withdraw some policemen for more important work I would point out that saving life is very important and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, at least on heavily congested junctions, traffic work should be in the hands of the regular and more efficient policemen.
I have another simple suggestion, relating to the stopping places for passenger vehicles. Here is where difficulty arises in the use of torches. There may be an omnibus or tramcar request stop. What happens? When the would-be passenger comes to one of these stops his torch automatically goes up to the sign, and in coming down it automatically blinds some poor driver. That is all wrong. Instead of the sign being 12 feet, or whatever it may be, in the air, there ought to be some sign painted on the kerb, indicating, "This is a trolley bus stop," and consisting, if you like, of a white diamond, or of half a white diamond to say: "This is an omnibus stop." By using such signs people would know the kind of stop they were waiting at, and they would stop there. This suggestion would prevent something which is very bad. Continuous waiting is brought about because of the lack of petrol and services being more or less a muddle because of the black-out. You will see whole crowds of people queueing up for a bus, rushing across to a tram, if the tram is going the same way, missing it and then going back to the stop again. That kind of thing is a serious danger to the road user and to the pedestrian. I suggest that the Minister might think of bringing down to the kerb the signs which are now so high in the air. I believe that by so doing he would be making another contribution to the reduction of accidents.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Islington cited the case of schedules that had been reduced by four minutes on the 59 road. If he were a practical driver he would see that that alteration means a great easement to a person on that road, because he has four additional minutes to play with. Taking it by and large, the London Passenger Transport Board have adopted lengthened periods for their schedules and longer stand times for the men. In some places they have actually educed the number of hours driving for the men. In other cases, employers are riot so nationally minded. They have said: "There is the schedule, and to that you will drive." I say to my hon. Friend and to the right hon. Gentleman that no driver has ever got into trouble for running late. The driver always gets into trouble if he runs early. One of the reasons for the driver running to time is that he might lose his stand time by running late. It is necessary to be fully seized of that point. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might consider a general easement all over the country of the schedules and of the times fixed for those schedules. If he will look into that matter I think he will make a great contribution to the comfort of the driver and conductor and, I believe, to the wellbeing of the passenger. Another simple point is in relation to the passing of a tramcar. It is said that, in some places, highway committees say that no vehicle shall pass a tramcar on the off-side. That provision is not in the general body of the law. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman in his regulations would say that no vehicle shall pass a standing tramcar on the nearside while people are alighting or boarding the said tramcar. This is a potent factor in causing accidents, and if the right hon. Gentleman will face it he will be doing a useful service.
The regulations that have been issued are out to-day. The thing that strikes me as remarkable about them is that in almost every paragraph there is the permissive word "may." Why does not the right hon. Gentleman say "shall" and be done with it, and then insist that the thing be done? It is this permissiveness that allows local authorities who are not too mindful of the requests of Parliament to dodge the column—to use a military phrase. If the right hon. Gentleman would say in these regulations that authorities shall do these things,

they would be done. I would go further and say: "Not only shall you do them, but they shall be done by a certain date." That would give some semblance of order and proper regulation, under which everybody would know that they were expected to do these things as a right and a duty, and would not have the opportunity of avoiding their obligations. I know that the right hon. Gentleman may point to my own constituency. I do not mind. I will give him the full benefit of the point. Whatever he may say, it is easy for him to say that my local council have refused to put any traffic lights at the crossings, but my answer is that even if they have not it is the lowest recorded accident borough in Great Britain and I will save him the smile and save him telling me. Nevertheless, under some pressure from myself they have agreed, subject to certain conditions, that certain traffic lights will be put in.
I hope it will not be thought that I have brought this discussion in any carping spirit but with a real genuine desire to assist in eliminating this very serious condition that we are in, and I believe that in some of the suggestions which I have submitted—in fact I say all of them —there may be something which will help, if only to save one life as the Minister said, and in my view I think they will save many lives. Experience only will tell that so far as London is concerned in the black-out period the 20 mile an hour speed limit will give more congestion and, therefore, more danger.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Simmonds: I am sure there is not a single hon. Member who is not sickened by the history of this carnage, nor is there an hon. Member who would not suffer much privation and dislocation if by that means it could be eased. But, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, I cannot believe that this reduction in the speed limit from 30 to 20 miles an hour will give us the answer that we all desire.
May I first of all look at the solid objections to that change? Surely, even when we are dealing with the question of the sacrifice of the lives of the civil population we have still to observe some proportion as to what is the overwhelming demand upon this country to-day. It is to win this war. I believe that in two respects this alteration from 30 to 20


miles an hour will hamper the winning of the war. Perhaps I may properly speak of my own city of Birmingham. Birmingham in these days is almost as alive industrially at night as it is in the day, and I wonder what will be the effect when all those tens of thousands of workers who go to work at night and leave before the dawn and all those transport vehicles that are working in the war effort up and down the country find this paralytic hand upon them. I wonder what will be the result of that?
Secondly, although I do not quote any fixed figure, from such knowledge as I possess of the internal combustion engine I calculate that this 20 miles an hour speed limit will mean a 10 per cent. increase in petrol consumption. Both those two points may possibly be justified if we obtain the result in return. But I doubt if we shall. In any case, I do not believe the Government should have come to what after all is a facile solution by merely reducing the speed limit from 30 to 20 miles an hour until they have tried out a suggestion which has been made by a number of hon. Members before me —the use of two masked headlamps. I have driven a certain amount in the black-out, but I wanted to try and make some careful examination of what this driving with one mask headlight meant, and I fancy that the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who opened this Debate, hit on the basis of this problem when he said, if I heard him aright, that a vehicle must be able to pull up within the area of luminosity. But as I make my check upon any car, I find that on the side on which you have your masked headlight your area of luminosity extends possibly 20 feet in front of you, whereas on the side where you have not got it it extends perhaps five or six feet. But the side of a car which is not illuminated is just as lethal as the side which is illuminated; and it simply means that the pedestrian, or other object, flashes up in front of the car, giving you six feet within which to pull up if it happens to be on the one side, and 20 feet if it is on the other. By what canons of sanity can that be allowed to continue?
I feel that, seeing that the Government have given way with regard to public service vehicles, they should now, particularly in view of the fact that there are so many fewer vehicles on the road,

allow all vehicles—at any rate during a test period, in which the Royal Air Force could carefully examine any change on the roads—to carry the twin masked headlights. Do not let us misunderstand this decision. There is no technical information that anybody can lay down in a numerical form which will show clearly from one set of data that you must have one headlight, or from some other set of data that you may have two: it is very largely a matter of opinion. I think I shall be giving away nothing when I say that some of the pilots who have been examining the roads from the air have been of very different opinions, one from the other, as they look down. I believe that the Government should allow all vehicles to have the twin headlights.
We may properly bear in mind the attitude that our great and gallant Ally takes in these matters. France has studied war, has been involved in war, and, I believe, thinks practically upon war problems. I wonder how many hon. Members realise that when you motor in France, as I have to do frequently, when you go out towards the west or the south from Paris you are allowed, directly you are 30 miles out, to put on your full peace-time headlights—that is, possibly, within 100 or 150 miles of the German front line. By what canons may the French have full peace-time headlights while we may not have the second masked headlight? There seems to be some inconsistency between the military points of view of the two countries, and it may be summed up in a rather apt observation which a high French officer made to a friend of mine. My friend said to him, "How is it that you can have so much light in France, particularly on your vehicles, and we can have none?" The French officer replied, with a twinkle in his eye, "Dans les affaires de guerre vous êtes des amateurs."

Mr. Ellis Smith: Tell us what that means.

Mr. Simmonds: For those who do not speak the French tongue fluently, he indicated that in matters of war the English are somewhat amateurs. There may be something in that. The French have had to make compromises between different extremities. I fancy we have been too ready to take the service point


of view that "We must have the blackout." What are the social, economic and personal problems that arise from the institution of the black-out? I do not want it to be thought that I would blame the Royal Air Force attitude at all. The Service Department must say what in its opinion will satisfy all Service requirements. Where I think the fault lies is that the Ministers who have to look after the economic life of the country have not sufficiently toned down the Service point of view in order to get a solution commendable both to the military and to the civil mind. I sincerely hope that, as a result of the protests that have been made from all sides of the House, the Government will even now reconsider this question of the double masked lamp, but above all it seemed to me that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Transport was acting somewhat cavalierly when he said, "No, we cannot change after eleven o'clock because we would have to have three or four changes." But there is a great deal of activity of transport and personal vehicles and of staffs on night shifts using the roads of the country after eleven o'clock at night, and I most sincerely appeal to him not to have the 20 mile limit after eleven o'clock at night. I do hope that he will reconsider this aspect of the matter.

9.42 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I am one of those on this side of the House who claim to be experienced drivers, with excellent eyesight, and I welcome the 20 miles per hour limit. I had intended to-night to add my appeal to that of others and to ask the Minister to consider reducing the speed limit further. I cannot understand how hon. Members like the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) and others, who are experienced motorists, could advance the view that the 20 miles limit will not to a great extent reduce the casualties on the road. Surely, the motorist who is accustomed to driving in the black-out, if he is honest with himself, will admit that when driving at over 20 miles an hour he loses the sense of security. I am sure that the hon. Member for Duddeston, who says he has experimented with different kinds of lamps, must have driven along a built-up area night after night and have said to himself, "At what speed do I feel sure that I could pull up

within two yards, if necessary?" That is a simple experiment which can be proved by everybody who is doubtful about this matter. I have tried it on roads with which I am completely familiar and on which I have driven—I hate to think how long-20 years. [HON. MEMBERS "0h!"] Add 17 on to that, and you will know where you are. I have actually experimented during the last week-end while the moon was up, and I find, even when the moon is up, that I am driving at a risk to pedestrians if I go at over 20 miles an hour.
We have heard an expert too. I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) has made an excellent contribution to-night. I cannot say whether the traffic will bunch or will riot bunch. I only know that, whether you are a driver of a private car or of an omnibus, you must at some time experience the sensation that I experience when I drive at over 20 miles an hour. Therefore, I welcome the introduction of this new scheme.
The other point I wish to mention has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). I join with him—and I am pleased to see the Home Secretary and the Minister of Transport here—in saying that I cannot understand why this House and even Ministers on the Front Bench should be provoked to mirth at the mention of alcohol. I am not intolerant like the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor); as a matter of fact I believe it is a very bad habit to be intolerant of anything. You can even become intolerant of political institutions, and tolerance is a very important virtue to practise. Therefore I am not intolerant so far as alcohol is concerned. But I am conscious of the fact that we are discussing to-night a very serious problem. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe has told us that if the war goes on for three years and people are killed on the roads at the present rate we shall have lost nearly half a million people at the end of that time. The Government should consider any suggestion which is made to reduce road casualties, and when I see what has been mentioned in many places, and recommended by many cornmittees—that some kind of severe penalty should be imposed upon those who are convicted of dangerous driving as a result


of drinking—surely the time has come when the Government should mention the matter. Yet the Minister of Transport surveyed the whole position without mentioning this very important question.
Sitting here I have come to the conclusion that Members of this House treat this question in this flippant manner because they do not believe that alcohol can depress and, particularly, do not believe it can depress the critical faculties of any one because many of them find they need a certain little stimulant in order to make a speech. Actually nervous persons about to make a speech can, perhaps, make a better speech, not because they are more brilliant, but because alcohol has affected the nervous system in such a way that the critical faculties are depressed and they are under the impression that they are infinitely more brilliant and their arguments are more forceful, which is completely wrong. It only means that their faculty for self-criticism has gone and later on they take more and more alcohol and become perfect fools. I am aware that politicians are intolerant of these discussions and I believe that that, in part, is some reason why they say, "Consider how I feel after having a glass of whisky."
When it comes to a motor driver the same process takes place. His critical faculties are depressed and his reactions delayed, and I believe that delay accounts for hundreds of deaths on the road every year. The rapidity with which a driver can brake will save many lives. What I am saying is a scientific fact, and the Minister of Transport knows it. He has heard to-night from the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) about road houses, outside which cars are parked while men are drinking inside. If the time comes for them to brake suddenly when they are driving from these road houses their reactions are delayed. Surely the time has come when we must ignore vested interests, when, if we are going to tackle this matter, we must face it bravely and constructively, and I hope that when the Home Secretary comes to reply he will make some constructive suggestions.

9.51 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: I know exactly what the House was thinking when the hon. Lady opposite spoke on the question of

drink. It was thinking that I am a bit of a crank, a lunatic, a Pussyfoot, or a Prohibitionist. I may be a bit of a crank and perhaps a bit of a lunatic, but I am not a Pussyfoot or a Prohibitionist. A Pussyfoot, it seems to me, is a person who springs in the dark, who sneaks up silently behind, and nobody can ever accuse me of doing that. I have never been a Prohibitionist. But leaving all this aside, I want to ask hon. Members, and particularly Members of the Government, whether they are going to look into this appalling number of accidents, these deaths which have occurred on our roads, and why it is that the Minister of Transport has not paid attention to two reports, one, oddly enough, of a committee set up by the late Minister for War when he was Minister of Transport. He was full of vigour then and was going to do all sorts of things. So many questions were asked about drink that he set up a medical committee in 1935, and they made a report, but nothing has happened. He forgot all about it, and, as far as I can make out, the present Minister of Transport has never read that report.
Here we are with these thousands of people being killed, over 1,000 children were killed last year and 42,000 injured, over 8,000 of them seriously, and the Minister of Transport does not think it worth while to mention the question of drink. I know why—vested interests. That is the reason. Everybody is terrified at the mention of drink. I can understand the conspiracy of silence about the drink problem, and I can well understand why the Government at this time are not going into the question seriously. Even the House of Lords went into it, and Heaven knows that the House of Lords is full of brewers. I have watched brewers who have gone in a steady march to the other House to become our betters, and even the House of Lords set up a committee which reported upon the matter, yet nothing has been done. The Minister says that there is no proof. I can give some proof, some facts which are perfectly appalling. A committee of the British Medical Association reported that the adverse effect, even if alcohol is taken in moderate quantities some hours before driving, leads many people to take risks and to take rapid decisions which may involve risks; and that anyone who drives a car after taking alcohol may


believe himself to be driving well, when in fact he is driving badly.
That was in 1935, and since then nothing has been done in the matter. Instead, we have watched the building on our great roads of the most prominent houses, the road houses. You have only to look outside of them and see the number of buses and vehicles there are. I-lave we to sit still and see thousands of people murdered and not look into what is a very serious question? I am not saying it is only the drink. It is the darkness as well, but in considering this question you have to take into account, not only the car and the darkness, but the condition of the driver. It is scientifically proved that even the smallest amount of alcohol stops the coordination between brain and hand. After I had once made a speech on this matter in the House, a former Admiral came up to me and said, "I think you go a little too far in this matter, but I must confess that in one of our gun factories we tried an experiment by giving the men just a very small amount of alcohol, and immediately their sight became affected." Can we at this time afford not to look into the question of the effect of alcohol on road accidents? Last year 2,500 people were arrested for drunkenness while driving a car. They are arrested, some of them get off easily and some do not—it depends on the judge. If you kill a person when you are sober, you probably get a life sentence, but if you kill a person when you are drunk and driving a car, probably you get nine months. It is absurd. I am talking about the effects of a small amount of alcohol on drivers of cars. I do not want the House to take my word; I want it to take the word of people such as Mr. Dummett, of Bow Street, who said:
People are being destroyed, or even worse—maimed, perhaps, for life. A very large part of it is due to bad driving by drunken or semi-drunken drivers. That is a weekly occurrence. You have only to look at the accident figures for last week to see that when I talk about the numbers of casualties, I am not exaggerating in the least. What is to be done?
The Chief Constable of Wallasey wrote in his annual report:
If there is no improvement I can foresee the self-indulgent section of motorists forcing along legislation to definitely control the supply of intoxicants to drivers of motor vehicles. The provision of motor parks adjoining licensed premises has not contributed to a better state of affairs in this respect.

From all over the country these reports are coming in. Mr. Cole, the Chief Constable of Leicester, said:
It is not the drunkard who causes accidents, but the man who has had a few drinks thinks himself a wonderful driver and takes unnecessary risks when his judgment has been impaired through alcohol.
Reference has been made to the enormous number of accidents in Birmingham; a great many of them occurred to people coming from public houses. It is really a tragic thing, and I beg the Government to do something about it_ As the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) said, there is too much permissiveness. I wish to goodness they would get the hon. Member at the Ministry of Transport. I do not believe we have had any vigour at the Ministry of Transport for 10 years. I go back as far as that. During the time the late Secretary of State for War was at the Ministry of Transport and talking about all the wonderful things he was doing, I was told by a road expert that at that time the City of New York had dealt with its traffic problem, which is far more difficult than that of London, in a remarkably up-to-date and modern way. I cannot see that we have had very much up-to-dateness here. I am all for getting new blood at the Ministry of Transport. Take the hon. Member for Rotherhithe—he is vigorous; the hon. Member says he is a bit of a Fascist, but I have not noticed that.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Did I say that?

Viscountess Astor: I want at the Ministry of Transport more vigour, more imagination, and more action, and people who will face every aspect of the road question. I want to remind the House that during the last war the reason we got on so vigorously was that we had a Prime Minister who was perfectly ruthless against Ministers when they were not "delivering the goods." I shall always be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) for that ruthlessness During the last war steps had to be taken by the Government to deal with drinking. It was not a very popular thing to do. It was not done because they were teetotallers, but because they found that drink was impairing the efficiency of the country. The Home Secretary, I am


sure, knows, because he is a good Scotsman, what happened in Glasgow. In Glasgow they had voluntary closing of public houses at eight o'clock instead of 10, with the result that there was a 50 per cent. reduction in arrests for drunkenness and in the numbers of injured and killed in one month.
The Home Secretary, I am sure, has no prejudices in this matter, and he is quite fearless. That is one of the things that I like most about him. Will he look into this question, and if he sees that drink is one of the causes of these accidents and deaths, will he do something about it? I do ask hon. Members to think of those maimed children and of the homes which have been desolated by deaths on the road. As the hon. Lady opposite said, there is no joke about drunkenness. There is no joke about these accidents and about the appalling state of the roads. Whatever should be done must be done. I greatly regret that there are not more Members present at this Debate. Just think, if the I.R.A. had killed 1, 000 people or 500 people in a month, how this House would be filled to debate it. But here you have this enormous number of accidents on the road, and yet nothing is done. But I hope the Government will remember that although Members of the House of Commons may not be anxious about this question, the country is deeply anxious about it and desires that whatever measures are taken to deal with it should not be made permissive, but should be compulsory on the local authorities.
Many suggestions have been made. I do not say that the motorist only is to blame. I think that pedestrians are in many cases to blame. I know that is not a popular thing to say, but I remember that when the question of having lamps on bicycles was raised in this House that was not popular either and there was an outcry from all sections. We were told that the bicycle was the working man's only vehicle and all the rest of it, and that these conditions could not be imposed. But we had to do it, and we have done it, and as a result many lives have been saved. Before the war is over it will be necessary to face the question of whether the consumption of alcohol is helping to win the war and to save lives on the road, or whether it is doing harm. If it is doing harm, it is the Government's

duty to control it more vigorously. Why should they not have a little more propaganda? Every time that an advertisement is put up saying "Guinness is good for you," why not put up another advertisement saying, "Guinness is good for very few"? Why not ask Guinness themselves to do that? They are very patriotic. Why not ask Guinness to do it, and let that be their war contribution? Heaven knows, they will make enough money before the war is over, and instead of letting them give it to hospitals, why should they not be asked to put up, along with every one of their signs, a notice warning people against the dangers of drink?

10.5 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: The Minister of Transport, in concluding his eloquent speech in favour of the reduction of the speed limit, said that, if the deaths were reduced by 100, or 10, or even one, his conduct would be justified. I do not think that the Minister of Transport, or indeed any other Minister, is going to have his conduct justified merely by the reduction of a death roll. I think we are looking at this matter which we are discussing today altogether from the wrong angle. There is only one question which every Minister has to put to himself to-day, and that is, "Will what I am doing help to win the war, or not?" That is the only test which should apply to every measure. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the problem to know whether the reduction of the speed limit to 20 miles per hour is likely to help win the war. I should not consider for one moment the private driver, because I think we have only to consider the transport of munitions, of goods, and necessary manufactures by road, and the question of getting the workers to the factories in the buses. I think, probably, a speed for buses of 20 miles an hour, if they do not go slower will probably enable them to do valuable work as now.
I think both the Minister of Transport, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Home Security are too inclined to look at their jobs from the narrow point of view of "How can I best do the particular job to which I am concerned? How can I secure the best black-out? How can I best prevent casualties?" That is not the only point of view that has to be applied to these problems, for the problem is much wider. The black-out and


the evacuation must be judged not solely from the point of view of which may be ultimately safest, but whether it is best for winning the war and carrying on production in this country.
I want to put before the right hon. Gentleman to-night a plea for the relaxation of the black-out in the country districts and in the safe districts. I say that, not because I want to be more comfortable in walking home, or to be able to drive a motor car at 40 miles per hour, but simply because I think the more the black-out is limited, the sooner we shall be able to increase the production of this country, pay for the war, and beat Germany. I received a letter the other day from a tenant farmer of mine. The property is miles from anywhere, and I do not think there is a house within a quarter of a mile. I have just put up a new hay barn, and he wrote to me telling me that the A.R.P. warden said that the new hay barn roof shone too brightly on moonlight nights, arid would I, therefore, paint the roof? I sent back to say that I would paint it with pleasure, but I would paint it luminous white paint in order that the bombers might mistake it for Crewe junction. I said we had to consider this war in the spirit of self-sacrifice, and possibly with a sense of humour.
The original object of the black-out was that the bombers might not find the populous centres and the factories, and that they might waste their bombs on the open country instead of dropping them on the centre of London, Manchester, or Stoke-on-Trent. I would light up the country and encourage people to drive motor cars with powerful headlights in order that the enemy might drop bombs on the country in the mistaken belief that they were doing some harm. If I am right in my belief that the black-out was to prevent their finding the towns, I cannot see any argument for blacking-out the country and preventing their finding open places upon which to direct their bombs. I would go further than that. Take my own district in the Potteries. We are blacked-out. We are not an evacuation area. There is no chance of the Germans selecting Stoke-on-Trent to bomb. They would certainly prefer everybody else. The black-out means that all the factories in winter time have to work short hours. We are engaged in that district mostly in the export trade, the life-blood of the

country, a fact which will sooner or later be realised as more vital to this country than the fighting Services, because we are providing the only sinews of war for the fighting Services. If these factories are told that they can work in winter time only six hours a day and cannot work double shifts even in summer, it certainly handicaps the country in the effort that it is making to hold out against the siege warfare, a siege enforced not by the German Navy, but by the mere fact that we cannot buy goods anywhere unless we pay for them by our exports.
In these circumstances I think the right hon. Gentleman might reconsider the case of black-outs in those parts of the country where production is required and which are very far from the centres of German bombers. I would ask him to reconsider from the beginning the whole question of the evacuation of London and the blackout here. They go together; everything that can be said against one can be said against the other. When the evacuation and the black-out were decided on, everybody thought we were going to be bombed immediately, and not merely bombed as we were in the last war, but bombed so destructively that the whole centre of the Empire would be untenable. The estimates that were made of the results of one bombing raid were, I am told, in the nature of 200,000 casualties. That was the estimate made by, I believe, the Air Ministry. They made a mistake; I think everybody agrees that they made a mistake. I do not believe they repeat that estimate now. Everybody is liable to make mistakes, but in these matters they tend to exaggerate the importance of their Departments. I think that they genuinely mistook the power of the German Air Force. We have since seen the bombing of Helsinki by the Russian planes going on continuously for six weeks, yet only the other day we had it reported that 200 people in all had been killed in this series of raids, such as we could never have in this country owing to our better defensive arrangements.
We might have learned the same lesson from Spain. We read of all the tales of destruction in Barcelona, and then discovered how small was the death-roll there —in Barcelona, entirely undefended by anti-aircraft guns, where the bombing planes could come right down on top of the houses. We can judge from that


that the death-roll here will not be 200,000. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if he had been able to believe in September last that for six months no bomb would drop on London he would certainly not have evacuated all those people, would not have gone to the enormous expense of A.R.P., would not have insisted on the black-out, which is hamstringing industry. Has the probability of a raid increased or decreased in the last six months? I think everybody must be conscious that it is extremely unlikely now that the Germans will bomb us before we bomb them, unlikely because they are beginning to get the hang of the idea that it is much easier for us to bomb Germany than for Germany to bomb us. It is easier for two overwhelming reasons. One is that we can start immediately from the German frontier, whereas they have to come 400 miles over the sea to get at us. The second is that the Germans are rather short of petrol, and that we have as much as we want. Every one of their raids is going to cost them four times as much in petrol, and anybody who has had any dealings with those heavy bombing machines knows that a bombing raid of 500 bombers over London would exhaust pretty well all the petrol the Germans have. The difficulty of the Germans is not in producing planes or the pilots for them but in providing petrol. They used up so much petrol in Poland that they have come to the conclusion that they had better play for safety until they have built up their reserves again. When our planes are going over Germany they do not go up to fight them because they do not want to waste petrol.
Our reprisals on Germany would be infinitely worse than their raids on us, because our machines could be accompanied by fighters, the range being so small. We could hit them much harder than they could hit us. Further, our expenditure of petrol would be only one-fourth of theirs, and we have the petrol and they have not. Also, Hitler has said in so many words that he is not going to bomb us unless we bomb them. And why should they bomb us? He has more to gain by a waiting policy than we have. We are involved in all this expenditure, which they are more or less avoiding.
For these reasons I think the right hon. Gentleman must reconsider the whole question of the evacuation and the blackout. The expense is too great for the amount of security obtained. He said the other day that it was safer to go on with the black-out. I think it is safer, but there are degrees of safety. In war there is no absolute safety. You cannot be safe. You must cut your coat according to your cloth. You must realise that you cannot buy everything, because you have not got the money. If you are going in for victory you must be prepared for a long war, and you must not spend on things which are not essential the money which may be required for things which are essential. Suppose it were conceivable—conceivable—that one bombing raid by Germany could kill 200,000 in London. How many less will be killed if they raid us (a) in daylight, when they can see, or (b) in moonlight, when they can see, or (c) when all they can see is a subdued light which, by following the course of the Thames, they will know is London? We are not purchasing absolute security but only a certain reduction of risk, how much I do not know. If unprotected Helsinki loses only zoo people in a month all I can say is that I shall be immensely surprised if London, with its balloons, with its antiaircraft guns and its fighting planes all round, is even damaged more effectively by any bombing raid than it is being damaged by the evacuation of so many people and its business being allowed to go bankrupt.

10.22 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I had hoped that it might not be necessary for me to intervene in this Debate, but my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Transport gave the House fair warning that the Debate might take a course which would involve my having to wind-up. The speeches in the Debate have been so largely concerned with the black-out that I think I must undertake the task of replying. I am told that my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne), in the course of a speech which, unfortunately, I did not hear, said that the Minister of Transport had hamstrung the Debate by starting it off on the basis that the black-out would have to continue. I think that so far as hamstringing the Debate was concerned, it is perfectly obvious that my Noble


Friend has been guilty of some exaggeration. He went on to say that the House and the public have a right to know why the black-out is considered to be essential. I shall take up the challenge which he and a number of other hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate have thrown out this evening.
This is a most important matter, and I think the Debate has shown how widespread are the misunderstandings which still exist in regard to certain aspects of this question of the black-out. My right hon. and gallant Friend repeated a Statement that I have made more than once, that the black-out is not something devised by civil servants or civilian Ministers but is based on strategic considerations, and in the view of the Air Staff is an essential part of the apparatus of civil defence. But that does not mean that the Air Staff have had things all their own way. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) talked about the Minister of Transport and myself taking too narrow a view of our responsibilities. He suggested that my main consideration had been to see how good a black-out I could provide. I assure the House that the facts are very different. I have, from the beginning, regarded it as my duty to put before the Air Staff any considerations which it seemed to me ought to be taken into account, in order that the consequences of the complete black-out, which considerations of air strategy might prima facie require, and the inconveniences involved, might be alleviated, particularly in the matter of transport, safety of life and limb, and production, particularly for war purposes.
I have always found the members of the Air Staff most receptive of any suggestions that have been made to them, and willing to consider any arguments put forward. In war, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, you cannot get safety. There is no absolute ideal of perfection that you can secure. You must constantly be prepared to accept compromise. I have not yet found a case where the Air Ministry have refused to accept suggestions put to them, in the interests of the civilian population and of the civil life of the country, on grounds which, after I had studied the arguments, I considered insufficient. I want to make that point clear.
I would remind the House that there have been many alleviations since the first days of the war. We have had the development of aids to movement, the improved motor car lighting, the greatly improved lighting in public service vehicles—trams, buses, and trains—and we have recently had this glimmer lighting. Someone called it, speaking to me the other day, "pin-prick lighting." He really meant pin-point lighting. I will take up the point made by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) that we have not introduced this glimmer lighting universally. Well, we could not do so. It is a tremendous business to get the lamps and fittings that are required; but they are being installed as rapidly as the manufacturers can produce them. I have no evidence at all of any hold-up in the extension of the lighting, which, I believe, will be found a source of great comfort to pedestrians. It is intended primarily for pedestrians. It cannot be criticised—it ought not to be criticised—on the ground that it does not help motorists. It is not intended to do so.
One of the advantages of this lighting is that it does not affect the intensity of the light provided by the headlamps of motor cars. If the lighting was brighter, if, from the point of view of air strategy, brighter lighting could be allowed, headlamps would have to be made more intense to serve their purpose, because all these things are relative.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: An arbitrary date was fixed for the headlamp lighting to come into force; but no such date has been fixed for the "comfort lighting."

Sir J. Anderson: That may come. The arbitrary date for headlights was not fixed until I was satisfied that I could reasonably expect general observance of the regulation. It is no use laying down a regulation if it is not possible to carry it out.
The next point—in my view an exceedingly important point—is that the House should realise that the value of the black-out, and its merits and demerits, are not to be measured primarily in terms of damage to life and limb; they are not to be measured in terms of casualties. I want to make that absolutely clear. The aim of the black-out is three-fold: first, it is designed to prevent accurate navigation, and so to prevent the bomber


from finding his target; second, it is intended to prevent aimed bombing if and when the bomber finds his target; and, third, it is designed to render, as far as possible, unaimed bombing so haphazard and random that it has little effect.
I am going to make a statement which I think goes beyond anything that has yet been said on this subject. There are many aspects of the problem of air strategy which could not, in the public interest, be dealt with in a public debate, but I want to say this about the blackout. Whatever we may think about its effect in producing casualties on the roads, which may be contrasted with war casualties and so on, there are in this country—and presumably in all countries engaged in modern warfare—certain vital targets, the destruction of which might produce consequences of the gravest character, and the preservation of those vital military targets, securing them against damage, must be a primary consideration. It is true that we shall also secure a greater degree of safety for the population of these islands—and I would be the last to undervalue that consideration—but I say to the House very emphatically that the other consideration is, from the point of view of our war effort, which we must always keep in the forefront of our minds, the dominant consideration. Hon. Members, if they reflect, will easily understand that lighting which produces recognisable patterns on the ground which could be identified by aircraft, coming perhaps singly, perhaps without being detected, taking careful observation, might provide the enemy with the means of launching an attack unexpectedly on this country the consequences of which would be little short of disastrous. We have, we believe, by our black-out arrangements effectively protected the country against that major risk, and that is the main point that I want to make this evening. There has, I think, been a fundamental misapprehension in this matter; and, because of that misapprehension, I have felt justified in going beyond anything that had yet been said publicly in that connection.
If I may go on to considerations of a more detailed character, the basic necessities which, from a pilot's point of view, the black-out has produced are these: first, we cut down the lights in large towns so that the outlines of the towns

are obscured and made difficult to recognise; second, we cut down the lights in small towns, so that they look like villages; and we cut down the lights of villages so that they do not appear at all, or appear only like single cottages. We cut down the lights on the main roads and railways, so that we do not give navigational aids to the enemy bomber who passes over the country, so that we do not give him the recognisable pattern that I referred to a moment ago. In order to do this, all lights other than those essential to undertakings of national importance have to be dimmed, and are in fact dimmed, to very low intensities or are entirely obscured. Where work of national importance cannot be carried on without some measure of lighting going beyond what on general considerations would be regarded as safe, we have always recognised that the case is one for compromise, and we have to resort to various devices to diminish the risks that might be involved. It is well-known that in shipyards, docks. quarries, cement works, railway marshalling yards, where work has to be carried on night and day in the national interests, we have allowed lighting which is far brighter than would normally be regarded as safe. Similarly, with regard to steel works; that is a question of obscuring glare, and very special consideration has been given to the problem which arises in steel works and coke ovens, and everything relevant has, as far as possible, been taken into account. Where lighting is allowed which goes beyond the general level that would be considered safe, as I have said, we resort to special devices to minimise the danger which might be involved.
There is certain lighting which has to be switched off on the giving of the air-raid warning. It might be said, and it has been said, "Why do not you have for your ordinary street lighting a system which will enable you to switch the light off when the yellow warning is given?" There are very good reasons, as we think, against doing it. It is not a question of being impracticable. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) said that a lot of nonsense had been talked about the difficulty of devising some system of mass switching which would enable street lighting to be cut off on warning of an air raid. The Government


have realised from the beginning that there are well recognised systems in existence of central control of, at any rate, electric street lighting. The same thing does not hold in gas lighting, which represents even to-day more than 50 per cent. of the public street lighting of this country. Certainly a system of central switches could have been introduced in regard to electric lighting, but it would have been vastly expensive. It would have involved providing entirely new circuits and would have taken a very long time to instal, and it is doubtful whether the labour and materials could have been provided. Still, it was a possibility; we examined it, and we rejected it.

Mr. Montague: How long does it take to turn off the street lights under the present system?

Sir J. Anderson: It would involve the employment of a very large number of people who would have to be kept constantly standing by if we relied upon switching off the lighting on the occurrence of a sudden emergency. That is the point. We considered that, and we deliberately rejected it. The cost would have been very great, but the major consideration was one which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe, who said that an experienced airman with whom he had discussed the matter had pointed out the serious consequences of suddenly switching off the lights.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: And I accept it; it is obviously common sense.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, at the moment when air raids might be about to take place. Apart from that consideration there is also this fact which is very important: Hon. Members may not realise how many yellow warnings there will be in comparison with red warnings. There have been periods during the last few months when large areas of the country have been almost continuously under yellow warnings. If the yellow warning, which is confidential and private, were converted to a public warning as, in fact, it would be if the lights were suddenly switched off, think of the effect it would have on the morale and psychology of the people, on production.

Colonel Wedgwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that the people of this country are so apt to panic?

Sir J. Anderson: It is not a question of people being apt to panic; but, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has intervened, I would like to utter a word of serious warning against the acceptance of the assumptions he presented in his speech a few moments ago. I would not accept them for one moment, and I think it most dangerous that the public should be led to suppose that because we have not had air raids yet there are not going to be any air raids, and that because of certain experiences which have been undergone in Finland, air raids here, if they came, would not produce any considerable number of casualties. Incidentally the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned a figure, which I am not going to repeat, as though it represented an estimate of deaths. The figure on which his calculations were based was one arising out of an estimate of persons likely to be injured and having to be treated in hospital—quite a different thing from an estimate of the number of deaths.
I was explaining, however, that we had rejected any general arrangement of lights to be switched off on the receipt of a yellow warning, but that certain special lighting had been allowed, in the public interest, in industrial establishments. We have considered, also, allowing a higher intensity of lighting which could be switched off on receipt of a red warning. We have rejected that on somewhat different grounds, having regard to the speed at which aircraft can move to-day and the length of time necessarily taken in communicating the red warning to all persons to whom it goes. It would, in fact, be too late if lights were switched off when the red warning was received. We have rejected, after full consideration with the Air Staff, these two possibilities and we have fallen back, inevitably, on the third course of low intensity lighting. After careful experiment and investigation we have felt able to allow increased use of lighting of intensities which have been tested and found to be safe in the sense in which I have defined safety. Taking the safety of the country from the point of view of our ability to maintain our war effort as our primary consideration, we have to proceed on the line of gradually giving more relaxation of light where, in view of experience, we are satisfied that that can safely be done.
Various speakers have dealt with the subject of motor car lights. I want to


say a word about that, but before I do may I express my appreciation of the practical approach to this subject which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe made in his interesting speech. I think some of the suggestions he made may not prove to be capable of adoption, but he speaks from great experience, and as I have had the advantage of his assistance in some of these matters in the past I know he will realise that I shall always be ready to consider any suggestion he or his friends put forward on the basis of their practical experience.
In regard to motor car lights, the mask which has become compulsory this week was the result of a great deal of experiment. We have been urged to allow the use of two masks. At first sight that seems a practicable suggestion. We have in fact allowed it for public service vehicles, which present special problems. The driver is perched up high and the black area immediately in front of the vehicle presents greater difficulties and greater dangers than in the case of the ordinary motor car. For the time being we have decided against allowing two masked headlamps for other vehicles, and for this reason. If the light is to conform to the requirements of the Air Ministry, that it should not provide in the closely populated areas a pattern of the roads or the layout of the streets clearly visible from the air, the intensity of the light as measured by the amount of light spread on the road in front of the vehicle must be cut down to a certain level. We have allowed for the single light the maximum that is considered safe. If we allowed two lights we should have to cut down the intensity of each light by half. That is an arithmetical calculation which no one can challenge.

Sir W. Brass: The number of vehicles has been cut down and the amount of light you have now on the roads, even if you allowed two headlights, would not be as much as you got for one headlight last year.

Sir J. Anderson: We are willing to proceed by experience and we have been making careful experiments and tests The. House may take it from me that the masked headlight which is now prescribed gives the maximum light which in the opinion of those who have studied these things can safely be allowed from

a single vehicle and it follows that if you allow two lights the intensity of each of these lights must be reduced by half.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Having regard to his suggestion that this double lighting would reveal the pattern of the roads in congested areas, would the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing a double light for commercial vehicles on country roads at night?

Sir J. Anderson: We must proceed by stages. The real difficulty is that it becomes more difficult to enforce the regulations if you allow a variation in the intensity of the light. The hon. Member said that you want to be able to deal authoritatively with people to whom the regulations apply, and I can promise the hon. Member that I will give careful consideration to the eloquent plea he made for the exercise of more authority and greater severity in these matters. But so far as the public service vehicle is concerned, the question of control so far as the police are involved can to a large extent be disregarded, because you are dealing with a responsible public authority, and you can rely on their good sense and willingness to co-operate, supplemented perhaps by occasional tests; but with the individual motorist it is a different matter.
One of the great difficulties in connection with the question of street lighting up to the present time has been that, with the best will in the world—and most people are anxious to do what those in authority tell them they should do—we have had a state of extraordinary confusion, with lights of all kinds and all intensities, and even the new masks for headlamps have in many cases been improperly adjusted. We hope to get that right, and we want to make the requirements as simple as possible. For the time being, we are not going to allow two masked headlights, although we have allowed what we did not at first allow, an option as to whether the one mask should be put on the near or off headlamp. As regards the heavier goods vehicles, we shall have to judge by experience how far it is safe to go. I ask hon. Members to realise that in dealing with this matter throughout we have recognised that our knowledge is limited, that we have had to get experience as we went along; and I am not going to say—and no one concerned in the


matter is going to say—that we have reached finality yet. We are prepared to go further in the light of experience if we think that advantage would be gained.
I had intended to deal with one or two other points of detail, some of which I have already picked up. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe spoke about propaganda, and complained that we had not undertaken propaganda soon enough. I am sure the House will realise the difficulties that we have been in, to which I have already alluded. Frankly, we were not sure of our ground. People may say, "Why were not all the necessary experiments carried out before the war? There were months of intensive preparation—why wait until war before making these experiments?" The plain truth is that until the war made it possible to secure the background of the black-out, no experiments involving observation from the air could be of the slightest use, and therefore, we had to start from the war, and in the weather that we have had it has been very difficult sometimes to get the necessary data from air observation. We have had to consider all kinds of atmospheric conditions—the moonlight night, the misty night, the conditions in which the surface of the ground is dry and the conditions in which it is wet, where there are quite different degrees of reflection. All this has involved the expenditure of a great and surprising amount of time in experiment and investigation, and until we were sore of the kind of advice that we ought to give to people we could not fairly or properly or safely engage in active and vigorous propaganda. But we have got data now. We have definite advice that we want to give to the public, and I am sure the hon. Member for Rotherhithe will realise, even though he may not agree with what I have said, that it is better late than never; and we are going ahead and hope that, as a result of the measures we are taking, we shall get many improvements in the observance of the Regulations that have been laid down.
The hon. Member suggested that we should go further than we have agreed to go in an investigation of the actual causes of road accidents. My right hon. and gallant Friend said we were going to take sample cases. We are not going to revert to the practice, which obtained before the war, of detailed analyses of all cases throughout the country, for the simple reason that to do so would involve

an expenditure of man-power which we feel we cannot afford. We shall take a sufficient number of cases—and by cases I mean areas—to give us a proper representative sample for the whole country, and in that way we shall learn a great deal more than we know now as to the precise cases in which the greater number of the accidents occur.
On the question of man-power the hon. Gentleman criticised the police authorities for employing so frequently, as they do, special constables on traffic duty instead of regular police. There are good reasons for that. It is not merely that the regular police are not at the moment available. They have certain additional duties to discharge, it is true, but the main consideration is that the special constables and members of the Police War Reserve have to be available to supplement the regular police in time of great emergency. If they are to be of value they have to be trained in their duties and gain experience. That is why we are employing special constables and members of the Police War Reserve on those duties of which one can say, without any reflection on the "specials" or the reservists, that the regular police could probably with their experience do the work, at the moment, better. But we have to give the special constables and reservists opportunities of gaining this experience.
The hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) had certain criticisms to offer. I have dealt with the question of masked headlamps on which he laid stress. There is one point he made to which I would refer. He drew a comparison between conditions in this country and conditions in France. I should not care to involve myself in any discussion of the relative merits of precautions taken in this country and those taken—in what may be different circumstances—by our gallant Allies. But there is this to be borne in mind. Paris is 150 miles from the Luxemburg frontier, which is for this purpose the front line. In this country the coast has to be taken as our front line, and there are very few parts of the country as far from the coast as Paris is from that frontier. That is in itself a consideration. But I would like to say that we have not by any means closed our minds to the possibility of having a system of zones and, for example, allowing, if not in regard to general street lighting, at any rate in


regard to industrial lighting, a higher standard of lighting beyond a certain line so many miles—I will not specify the Lumber—from the East Coast.
We have not by any means closed our minds to that, and we are, in fact, at this moment working on that basis. I have made a special arrangement by which lighting experts and practical men will go to any industrial establishment, shipyard or dock or whatever it may be, where difficulty is being experienced in securing the necessary industrial output on account of the black-out, and will settle on the spot what rearrangement of lighting or what relaxation of lighting restrictions should be allowed in order that our war effort should not be unduly impeded.

Viscount Cranborne: Will that relaxation apply also to car lights, as well as industrial plant, and things of that kind? It does seem an important point.

Sir J, Anderson: It might in the course of time. We have not excluded that. As I said before, we are fully alive to the fact that we have gained experience as we have gone along. We have been able to

produce relaxation which at the beginning we felt could not be safely allowed.

It being Eleven of the Clock the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Captain Margesson.)

Sir J. Anderson: One final word. Consider the position in Germany. All the evidence goes to show that the black-out in Germany is even more complete than in this country, even in parts of Germany far removed from the frontier. The Germans are a methodical, systematic, careful people. They have not imposed on themselves the self-denial that is involved in a complete black-out for reasons which they do not regard as fully justified. That is a consideration to which we can rightly attach some importance, especially when we are invited to consider the different state of things obtaining in France.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned according at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.